The Role of Stimulus-Driven and Goal-Driven Control in Saccadic Visual Selection.
Open accessAbstract
Four experiments were conducted to investigate the role of stimulus-driven control in saccadic eye movements. Participants were required to make a speeded saccade toward a predefined target presented concurrently with multiple nontargets and possibly 1 distractor. Target and distractor were either equally salient (Experiments 1 and 2) or not (Experiments 3 and 4). The results uniformly demonstrated that fast eye movements were completely stimulus driven, whereas slower eye movements were goal driven. These results are in line with neither a bottom-up account nor a top-down notion of visual selection. Instead, they indicate that visual selection is the outcome of 2 independent processes, one stimulus driven and the other goal driven, operating in different time windows.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In eye-movement studies, fast saccades initiated soon after stimulus onset are more likely to be directed toward the salient stimulus or the stimulus associated with reward or threat.
“fast saccades initiated soon after stimulus onset are more likely to be directed toward the salient stimulus (Theeuwes et al., 1998, 1999; van Zoest et al., 2004) or the stimulus associated with reward (Failing et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2016) or threat (Nissens et al., 2016).”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as van Zoest et al., 2004
It is likely that salience and history-based effects affect selection early in time while top-down processes dominate selection later in time.
“It is likely, that salience and history-based effects affect selection early in time while top-down processes dominate selection later in time (see also Hickey, van Zoest, & Theeuwes, 2010c; van Zoest et al., 2004).”
From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as van Zoest et al., 2004
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 330
- Authors
- van Zoest, W., Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 746-759
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- OpenAlex
- W2398833147
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 4.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.vu.nl
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- saccades, visual selection, distractor suppression, distractor salience, bottom-up processing, top-down processing
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Choice Behavior, Goals, Humans, Reaction Time, Saccades, Visual Perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
