English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It has been hotly debated whether a single mechanism underlies two established and highly robust oculomotor phenomena thought to index the competitive nature of eye movement plans: the remote distractor effect and saccadic inhibition (SI). It has been suggested that a transient mechanism underlying SI would not be able to account for the shift in the saccade latency distribution produced by early distractors (e.g., those appearing 60 ms before target onset) without additional assumptions or a more sustained source of inhibition. Here we tested this prediction with a model previously optimized to capture SI for late distractors. Where behavioral studies have intermingled stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) within the same block, the model captures the pattern of RDEs and SI effects with no parameter changes. Where SOAs have been blocked behaviorally, the pattern of RDEs can also be captured by the same model architecture, but requires changes to the inputs of the model between SOAs. Such changes plausibly reflect likely changes in participants' expectations and attentional strategy across block types.

Saccadic inhibition and the remote distractor effect: One mechanism or two?