Self-bias modulates saccadic control

ABSTRACT

We present novel data on the role of attention in eliciting enhanced processing of stimuli associated with self. Participants were required to make pro- or anti-saccades according to whether learned shape–label pairings matched or mismatched. When stimuli matched participants were required to make an anti-saccade, and when the stimuli mismatched a pro-saccade was required. We found that anti-saccades were difficult to make to stimuli associated with self when compared to stimuli associated with a friend and a stranger. In contrast, anti-saccades to friend-stimuli were easier to make than anti-saccades to stranger-stimuli. In addition, a correct anti-saccade to a self-associated stimulus disrupted subsequent pro-saccade trials, relative to when the preceding anti-saccade was made to other stimuli. The data indicate that self-associated stimuli provide a strong cue for explicit shifts of attention to them, and that correct anti-saccades to such stimuli demand high levels of inhibition (which carries over to subsequent pro-saccade trials). The self exerts an automatic draw on attention.

KEYWORDS:

• Attention
• Saccadic control
• Self-bias

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors).

Notes

1. Our previous work showed that there were no significant differences in the magnitude of self-biases elicited by an association to a shape with a label “you” or a label “me” or “myself”.

2. For each participant we carefully checked whether the participant’s initials might interfere with the labels. Two out of 34 participants’ surnames started with the letter “S”, and one participant’s first name started with the letter “F”. We found no evidence for interference.

3. We emphasize here the term “saccadic directional accuracy” to avoid confusion with saccadic accuracy, which typically refers to the spatial error between intended and actual saccade landing point.

4. We also examined the effect of stimuli on the amplitude of saccadic responses, but no significant differences were found between the conditions.

5. Thanks to the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by an Advanced Investigator grant from the 10.13039/501100000781 European Research Council [grant number Pepe: 323883] to the G.W. Humphreys.