Effort and salience jointly drive saccade selection.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Damian Koevoet, Christoph Strauch, Marnix Naber, Stefan Van der Stigchel
{"title":"Effort and salience jointly drive saccade selection.","authors":"Damian Koevoet, Christoph Strauch, Marnix Naber, Stefan Van der Stigchel","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02701-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Choosing where to move the eyes ('saccade selection') is one of the most frequent human decisions and fundamentally shapes perception. Currently, saccade selection is thought to be predominantly driven by the observer's goals, selection history, and by the physical salience of stimuli. Recent work demonstrates that the inherent effort associated with planning and executing saccades ('saccade costs') also drives saccade selection: participants prefer making affordable over costly saccades. Do saccade costs still affect saccade selection when other factors such as salience attract gaze? Here, we addressed if, and how, saccade costs and salience together drive saccade selection by having participants freely choose between two potential saccade targets in different directions. Saccade targets either differed in salience or not, allowing us to disentangle the effects of saccade costs and salience. We observed that salience predicted saccade selection: participants chose salient over non-salient targets. Furthermore, saccade costs predicted saccade selection when equally salient targets were presented. When the possible targets differed in salience, the effect of saccade costs on saccade selection was reduced but not eliminated. Further analyses demonstrate that saccade costs and salience jointly drive saccade selection. Together, our results are in line with an accumulating body of work, and show that the role of effort in saccade selection is robust to salience. We conclude that effort must be considered a fundamental factor that drives where the eyes are moved.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02701-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Choosing where to move the eyes ('saccade selection') is one of the most frequent human decisions and fundamentally shapes perception. Currently, saccade selection is thought to be predominantly driven by the observer's goals, selection history, and by the physical salience of stimuli. Recent work demonstrates that the inherent effort associated with planning and executing saccades ('saccade costs') also drives saccade selection: participants prefer making affordable over costly saccades. Do saccade costs still affect saccade selection when other factors such as salience attract gaze? Here, we addressed if, and how, saccade costs and salience together drive saccade selection by having participants freely choose between two potential saccade targets in different directions. Saccade targets either differed in salience or not, allowing us to disentangle the effects of saccade costs and salience. We observed that salience predicted saccade selection: participants chose salient over non-salient targets. Furthermore, saccade costs predicted saccade selection when equally salient targets were presented. When the possible targets differed in salience, the effect of saccade costs on saccade selection was reduced but not eliminated. Further analyses demonstrate that saccade costs and salience jointly drive saccade selection. Together, our results are in line with an accumulating body of work, and show that the role of effort in saccade selection is robust to salience. We conclude that effort must be considered a fundamental factor that drives where the eyes are moved.

努力和显著性共同驱动了眼跳选择。
选择在哪里移动眼睛(“扫视选择”)是人类最常见的决定之一,并从根本上塑造了感知。目前,扫视选择被认为主要是由观察者的目标、选择历史和刺激物的物理显著性驱动的。最近的研究表明,与计划和执行扫视相关的内在努力(“扫视成本”)也推动了扫视选择:参与者更愿意进行负担得起的扫视,而不是昂贵的扫视。当其他因素如显著性吸引注视时,扫视成本是否仍然影响扫视选择?在这里,我们通过让参与者在两个不同方向的潜在扫视目标之间自由选择,讨论了扫视成本和显著性是否以及如何共同驱动扫视选择。扫视目标的显著性或不显著性不同,使我们能够区分扫视成本和显著性的影响。我们观察到显著性预测扫视选择:参与者选择显著性而非非显著性目标。此外,当同样显著的目标出现时,扫视成本预测了扫视选择。当可能的目标显著性不同时,扫视代价对扫视选择的影响减小但不消除。进一步的分析表明,眼跳成本和显著性共同驱动了眼跳选择。总之,我们的结果与积累的大量工作一致,并表明努力在扫视选择中的作用对显著性是稳健的。我们的结论是,努力必须被认为是驱动眼睛移动的一个基本因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信