Distractor effects in decision making are related to the individual's style of integrating choice attributes.

Humans make irrational decisions in the presence of irrelevant distractor options. There is little consensus on whether decision making is facilitated or impaired by the presence of a highly rewarding distractor, or whether the distractor effect operates at the level of options' component attributes rather than at the level of their overall value. To reconcile different claims, we argue that it is important to consider the diversity of people's styles of decision making and whether choice attributes are combined in an additive or multiplicative way. Employing a multi-laboratory dataset investigating the same experimental paradigm, we demonstrated that people used a mix of both approaches and the extent to which approach was used varied across individuals. Critically, we identified that this variability was correlated with the distractor effect during decision making. Individuals who tended to use a multiplicative approach to compute value, showed a positive distractor effect. In contrast, a negative distractor effect (divisive normalisation) was prominent in individuals tending towards an additive approach. Findings suggest that the distractor effect is related to how value is constructed, which in turn may be influenced by task and subject specificities. This concurs with recent behavioural and neuroscience findings that multiple distractor effects co-exist.

The adaptive global effect: Luminance contrast modulates the global effect zone.

When two peripheral objects are presented in close proximity, saccades towards one of these objects land at a weighted average location between the two objects. This phenomenon, known as the 'global effect' or 'saccade averaging', disappears when the distance between the objects increases. When objects are further apart, outside the averaging zone, saccades land on one of the objects with little or no saccade averaging. Although it is known that the strength of the global effect is dependent on the specific features of the two objects, it is unclear if the size of the zone in which averaging can occur (i.e., the averaging zone) is adaptive. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether the size of the averaging zone adapts to variations in object luminance contrast of the objects. In order to systematically assess changes in the averaging zone, in two experiments, observers made saccadic eye movements while the luminance of the target and the distractor varied. We report three major findings: 1) When a distractor was more luminant relative to the target, the averaging zone increased (Exp. 1). Notably, saccade averaging never entirely ceased to exist, even for remote distractors. 2) When target and distractor were equiluminant, the averaging zone did not change with absolute luminance (Exp. 2). 3) Higher (relative and absolute) luminance increased the averaging zone especially for shorter saccadic response times (SRT). We conclude that the averaging zone is adaptive and becomes larger with increasing relative luminance and especially when SRTs are short.

Impact of aversive affect on neural mechanisms of categorization decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Many theories contend that evidence accumulation is a critical component of decision-making. Cognitive accumulation models typically interpret two main parameters: a drift rate and decision threshold. The former is the rate of accumulation, based on the quality of evidence, and the latter is the amount of evidence required for a decision. Some studies have found neural signals that mimic evidence accumulators and can be described by the two parameters. However, few studies have related these neural parameters to experimental manipulations of sensory data or memory representations. Here, we investigated the influence of affective salience on neural accumulation parameters. High affective salience has been repeatedly shown to influence decision-making, yet its effect on neural evidence accumulation has been unexamined. METHODS: The current study used a two-choice object categorization task of body images (feet or hands). Half the images in each category were high in affective salience because they contained highly aversive features (gore and mutilation). To study such quick categorization decisions with a relatively slow technique like functional magnetic resonance imaging, we used a gradual reveal paradigm to lengthen cognitive processing time through the gradual "unmasking" of stimuli. RESULTS: Because the aversive features were task-irrelevant, high affective salience produced a distractor effect, slowing decision time. In visual accumulation regions of interest, high affective salience produced a longer time to peak activation. Unexpectedly, the later peak appeared to be the product of changes to both drift rate and decision threshold. The drift rate for high affective salience was shallower, and the decision threshold was greater. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an experimental manipulation of sensory data or memory representations that changed the neural decision threshold. CONCLUSION: These findings advance our knowledge of the neural mechanisms underlying affective responses in general and the influence of high affective salience on object representations and categorization decisions.

Visual attentional guidance during smooth pursuit eye movements: Distractor interference is independent of distractor-target similarity.

In the current study, we used abrupt-onset distractors similar and dissimilar in luminance to the target of a smooth pursuit eye-movement to test if abrupt-onset distractors capture attention in a top-down or bottom-up fashion while the eyes track a moving object. Abrupt onset distractors were presented at different positions relative to the current position of a pursuit target during the closed-loop phase of smooth pursuit. Across experiments, we varied the duration of the distractors, their motion direction, and task-relevance. We found that abrupt-onset distractors decreased the gain of horizontally directed smooth-pursuit eye-movements. This effect, however, was independent of the similarity in luminance between distractor and target. In addition, distracting effects on horizontal gain were the same, regardless of the exact duration and position of the distractors, suggesting that capture was relatively unspecific and short-lived (Experiments 1 and 2). This was different with distractors moving in a vertical direction, perpendicular to the horizontally moving target. In line with past findings, these distractors caused suppression of vertical gain (Experiment 3). Finally, making distractors task-relevant by asking observers to report distractor positions increased the pursuit gain effect of the distractors. This effect was also independent of target-distractor similarity (Experiment 4). In conclusion, the results suggest that a strong location signal exerted by the pursuit targets led to very brief and largely location-unspecific interference through the abrupt onsets and that this interference was bottom-up, implying that the control of smooth pursuit was independent of other target features besides its motion signal.

Clarifying the role of an unavailable distractor in human multiattribute choice.

Decisions between two economic goods can be swayed by a third unavailable 'decoy' alternative, which does not compete for choice, notoriously violating the principles of rational choice theory. Although decoy effects typically depend on the decoy's position in a multiattribute choice space, recent studies using risky prospects (i.e., varying in reward and probability) reported a novel 'positive' decoy effect operating on a single value dimension: the higher the 'expected value' (EV) of an unavailable (distractor) prospect was, the easier the discrimination between two available target prospects became, especially when their expected-value difference was small. Here, we show that this unidimensional distractor effect affords alternative interpretations: it occurred because the distractor's EV covaried positively with the subjective utility difference between the two targets. Looking beyond this covariation, we report a modest 'negative' distractor effect operating on subjective utility, as well as classic multiattribute decoy effects. A normatively meaningful model (selective integration), in which subjective utilities are shaped by intra-attribute information distortion, reproduces the multiattribute decoy effects, and as an epiphenomenon, the negative unidimensional distractor effect. These findings clarify the modulatory role of an unavailable distracting option, shedding fresh light on the mechanisms that govern multiattribute decisions.

The presence of placeholders modulates the naso-temporal asymmetry in the remote distractor effect.

The remote distractor effect (RDE) is a well-known and robust phenomenon whereby latencies of saccades are increased when a distractor is presented simultaneously along with the saccade target. Studies of the RDE in patients with a loss of vision in one visual field (hemianopia) following damage to primary visual cortex have provided conflicting results. Rafal, Smith, Krantz, Cohen, and Brennan (1990) reported a naso-temporal asymmetry in the RDE in patients with hemianopias, with a greater influence of distractors presented in their blind temporal visual field. This asymmetry was not observed in typically sighted controls. By contrast, Walker, Mannan, Maurer, Pambakian, and Kennard (2000) observed no effect of distractors presented to either the blind nasal or blind temporal hemifield of hemianopes, but the naso-temporal asymmetry was observed in typically sighted controls. The present study addressed one potential methodological differences between the two studies by investigating the inhibitory effect of a distractor on saccade latency in neurotypical participants. Here participants were tested monocularly and the effect of a nasal/temporal hemifield distractor on saccade latency observed in the presence or absence of peripheral placeholders. Our results showed a naso-temporal asymmetry in the magnitude of the RDE in the no placeholder condition, with a greater RDE when the distractor was presented in the temporal visual field. However, in the placeholder condition the opposite asymmetry was observed, that is an increased RDE when the distractor was presented in the nasal visual field. Our results suggest that the presence/absence of a placeholder might be the critical factor explaining the discrepancy between Rafal et al. (1990) and Walker et al. (2000) in participants without visual field loss. The current results can be interpreted in terms of additional inhibitory or attentional processes that bias selection towards stimuli in the nasal hemifield in the presence of placeholders, still, the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unclear.

The Influence of Irrelevant Visual Distractors on Eye Movement Control in Chinese Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence from the Remote Distractor Paradigm.

The current study examined eye movement control in autistic (ASD) children. Simple targets were presented in isolation, or with central, parafoveal, or peripheral distractors synchronously. Sixteen children with ASD (47-81 months) and nineteen age and IQ matched typically developing children were instructed to look to the target as accurately and quickly as possible. Both groups showed high proportions (40%) of saccadic errors towards parafoveal and peripheral distractors. For correctly executed eye movements to the targets, centrally presented distractors produced the longest latencies (time taken to initiate eye movements), followed by parafoveal and peripheral distractor conditions. Central distractors had a greater effect in the ASD group, indicating evidence for potential atypical voluntary attentional control in ASD children.

In search of oculomotor capture during film viewing: Implications for the balance of top-down and bottom-up control in the saccadic system.

In the laboratory, the abrupt onset of a visual distractor can generate an involuntary orienting response: this robust oculomotor capture effect has been reported in a large number of studies (e.g. Ludwig & Gilchrist, 2002; Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn, & Irwin, 1998) suggesting it may be a ubiquitous part of more natural visual behaviour. However the visual stimuli used in these experiments have tended to be static and had none of the complexity, and dynamism of more natural visual environments. In addition, the primary task in the laboratory (typically visual search) can be tedious for the participants with participant's losing interest and becoming stimulus driven and more easily distracted. Both of these factors may have led to an overestimation of the extent to which oculomotor capture occurs and the importance of this phenomena in everyday visual behaviour. To address this issue, in the current series of studies we presented abrupt and highly salient visual distractors away from fixation while participants watched a film. No evidence of oculomotor capture was found. However, the distractor does effect fixation duration: we find an increase in fixation duration analogous to the remote distractor effect (Walker, Deubel, Schneider, & Findlay, 1997). These results suggest that during dynamic scene perception, the oculomotor system may be under far more top-down control than traditional laboratory based-tasks have previously suggested.

How a distractor influences fixations during the exploration of natural scenes.

The distractor effect is a well-established means of studying different aspects of fixation programming during the exploration of visual scenes. In this study, we present a taskirrelevant distractor to participants during the free exploration of natural scenes. We investigate the control and programming of fixations by analyzing fixation durations and locations, and the link between the two. We also propose a simple mixture model evaluated using the Expectation-Maximization algorithm to test the distractor effect on fixation locations, including fixations which did not land on the distractor. The model allows us to quantify the influence of a visual distractor on fixation location relative to scene saliency for all fixations, at distractor onset and during all subsequent exploration. The distractor effect is not just limited to the current fixation, it continues to influence fixations during subsequent exploration. An abrupt change in the stimulus not only increases the duration of the current fixation, it also influences the location of the fixation which occurs immediately afterwards and to some extent, in function of the length of the change, the duration and location of any subsequent fixations. Overall, results from the eye movement analysis and the statistical model suggest that fixation durations and locations are both controlled by direct and indirect mechanisms.

The visual properties of proximal and remote distractors differentially influence reaching planning times: evidence from pro- and antipointing tasks.

The saccade literature has consistently reported that the presentation of a distractor remote to a target increases reaction time (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). As well, some studies have shown that a proximal distractor facilitates saccade reaction time. The lateral inhibition hypothesis attributes the aforementioned findings to the inhibition/facilitation of target selection mechanisms operating in the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus (SC). Although the impact of remote and proximal distractors has been extensively examined in the saccade literature, a paucity of work has examined whether such findings generalize to reaching responses, and to our knowledge, no work has directly contrasted reaching RTs for remote and proximal distractors. To that end, the present investigation had participants complete reaches in target only trials (i.e., TO) and when distractors were presented at "remote" (i.e., the opposite visual field) and "proximal" (i.e., the same visual field) locations along the same horizontal meridian as the target. As well, participants reached to the target's veridical (i.e., propointing) and mirror-symmetrical (i.e., antipointing) location. The basis for contrasting pro- and antipointing was to determine whether the distractor's visual- or motor-related activity influence reaching RTs. Results demonstrated that remote and proximal distractors, respectively, increased and decreased reaching RTs and the effect was consistent for pro- and antipointing. Accordingly, results evince that the RDE and the facilitatory effects of a proximal distractor are effector independent and provide behavioral support for the contention that the SC serves as a general target selection mechanism. As well, the comparable distractor-related effects for pro- and antipointing trials indicate that the visual properties of remote and proximal distractors respectively inhibit and facilitate target selection.

Oculomotor interference of bimodal distractors.

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.

Do emotions or gender drive our actions? A study of motor distractibility.

People's interaction with the social environment depends on the ability to attend social cues with human faces being a key vehicle of this information. This study explores whether directing the attention to gender or emotion of a face interferes with ongoing actions. In two experiments, participants reached for one of two possible targets by relying on one of two features of a face, namely, emotion (Experiment 1) or gender (Experiment 2) of a non-target stimulus (a task-relevant distractor). Participants' reaching movements deviated toward the task-relevant distractor in both experiments. However, when attending to the gender of the face the distractor effect was modulated by both gender (task-relevant feature) and emotion (task-irrelevant feature), with the largest movement deviation being observed toward angry male faces. Endogenous allocation of attention toward faces elicits a competing motor response to the ongoing action and the emotional content of the face contributes to this process at a more automatic and implicit level.

Saccadic distractor effects: the remote distractor effect (RDE) and saccadic inhibition (SI): A response to McIntosh and Buonocore (2014).

We (Walker & Benson, 2013) reported studies in which the spatial effects of distractors on the remote distractor effect (RDE) and saccadic inhibition (SI) were examined. Distractors remote from the target increased mean latency and the skew of the distractor-related distributions, without the presence of dips that are regarded as the hallmark of SI. We further showed that early onset distractors had similar effects although these would not be consistent with existing estimates of the duration of SI (of around 60-70 ms). McIntosh and Buonocore (2014) report a simulation showing that skewed latency distributions can arise from the putative SI mechanism and they also highlighted a number of methodological considerations regarding the RDE and SI as measures of saccadic distractor effects (SDEs). Here we evaluate these claims and note that the measures of SI obtained by subtracting latency distributions (specifically the decrease in saccade frequency--or dip duration) are no more diagnostic of a single inhibitory process, or more sensitive indicators of it, than is median latency. Furthermore the evidence of inhibitory influences of small distractors presented close to the target is incompatible with the explanations of both the RDE and SI. We conclude that saccadic distractor effects may be a more inclusive term to encompass the different characteristics of behavioral effects of underlying saccade target selection.

Saccadic inhibition can cause the remote distractor effect, but the remote distractor effect may not be a useful concept.

We have suggested that the remote distractor effect (RDE), the elevation of average saccadic reaction time (SRT) induced by a task-irrelevant distractor, may be explained as a statistical consequence of a characteristic reshaping of the SRT distribution known as saccadic inhibition (SI; Buonocore & McIntosh, 2008). In a recent paper, Walker and Benson (2013) argue against this idea and claim that the RDE and SI are partly dissociable. Here, we examine this claim, taking the opportunity to clarify potential ambiguities about how SI affects average SRT, and how the presence of SI can be inferred from SRT distributions.We highlight what we consider to be the most interesting aspects of Walker and Benson's data, and suggest that a more flexible and nuanced view of SI can account for them. In considering the relation between SI and the RDE, we conclude that the RDE may no longer be a useful concept for eye movement researchers.

Remote distractor effects and saccadic inhibition: spatial and temporal modulation.

The onset of a visual distractor remote from a saccade target is known to increase saccade latency (the remote distractor effect [RDE]). In addition, distractors may also selectively inhibit saccades that would be initiated about 90 ms after distractor onset (termed saccadic inhibition [SI]). Recently, it has been proposed that the transitory inhibition of saccades (SI) may underlie the increase in mean latency (RDE). In a first experiment, the distractor eccentricity was manipulated, and a robust RDE that was strongly modulated by distractor eccentricity was observed. However, the underlying latency distributions did not reveal clear evidence of SI. A second experiment manipulated distractor spatial location and the timing of the distractor onset in relation to the target. An RDE was again observed with remote distractors away from the target axis and under conditions with early-onset distractors that would be unlikely to produce SI, whereas later distractor onsets produced an RDE along with some evidence of an SI effect. A third experiment using a mixed block of target-distractor stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) revealed an RDE that varied with both distractor eccentricity and SOA and changes to latency distributions consistent with the timing of SI. We argue that the notion that SI underpins the RDE is similar to the earlier argument that express saccades underlie the fixation offset (gap) effect and that changes in mean latency and to the shape of the underlying latency distributions following a visual onset may involve more than one inhibitory process.

The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming.

When making a saccadic eye movement to a peripheral target, a simultaneous stimulus onset at central fixation generally increases saccadic latency, while offsets reduce latency ('gap effect'). Visual onsets remote from fixation also increase latency ('remote distractor effect'); however, the influence of remote visual offsets is less clear. Previous studies, which used a search task, found that remote offsets either facilitated, inhibited, or did nothing to saccade latencies towards a peripheral target. It cannot be excluded, however, that the target selection process in such search tasks influenced the results. We therefore simplified the task and asked participants to make eye movements to a predictable target. Simultaneously with target onset, either one or multiple remote stimulus onsets and offsets were presented. It was found that peripheral onsets increased saccade latencies, but offsets did not influence the initiation of a saccade to the target. Moreover, the number of onsets and offsets did not affect the results. These results suggest that earlier effects of remote stimulus offsets and of the number of remote distractor onsets reside in the target identification process of the visual search task rather than the competition between possible saccade goals. The results are discussed in the context of models of saccade target selection.

A comparison of bilateral versus unilateral target and distractor presentation in the remote distractor paradigm.

The remote distractor effect (RDE) is a robust finding of an increase in saccade onset latencies (20-40 ms) when a distractor is presented simultaneously with a target, compared to when a target is presented on its own (Walker, Deubel, Schneider, & Findlay, 1997). Distractors presented at fixation produce the largest RDE and the effect decreases as distractors are moved into the periphery. Data from two experiments that contrast with these standard findings are reported. Under bilateral target presentation, larger RDE magnitudes occurred for peripheral than for central distractors, whereas under unilateral presentation, the pattern reversed. The findings are discussed with reference to discrimination processes, attentional factors and current models of oculomotor control. It is suggested that in bilateral target presentation the competition between the distractor and the target results in the programming of a saccade to the distractor, as well as a saccade to the target. Time taken to cancel the saccade to the distractor produces the increased saccade latency for peripheral distractors in that condition.