PubMed1993
This article addresses the question how fast and accurate the location of a single stimulus can be perceived. In Experiment 1, we measured localization performance in a task which required subjects to perceive and report the location of a single target stimulus ('*' sign) presented in one square of an imaginary 25 x 19 grid. Two factors were varied: stimulus duration and stimulus eccentricity. Stimulus duration was manipulated by employing a backward masking stimulus. Ten intervals (stimulus onset asynchronies) separated target and masking stimulus: 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, 300, and 350 ms. Stimulus eccentricity was manipulated by presenting the target stimulus at five different distances from the fixation point. The observer localized the target stimulus by moving the cursor from the middle of the grid (the initial fixation point) to the perceived target location by pressing the 'arrow' keys on the keyboard. Localization performance showed to be typically related to stimulus duration. That is, two components could be distinguished: The first component represented an initial steep rise in localization performance during the first 50 ms of stimulus duration; the second component represented a gradual rise in localization performance after 50 ms, reaching maximal performance at about 300 ms. We interpreted these two localization performance functions as reflecting the operation of two systems, namely the attentional system for the initial strong increase and the eye movement system for the subsequent gradual increase. In Experiment 2, we measured saccadic eye response latencies to clarify the role of eye movements in localization performance. It was found that in 98.4% of all trials saccades were executed, and, moreover, that saccadic eye response latency decreased with increasing stimulus duration. In Experiment 3, we compared localization performance in the absence and presence of eye movements and demonstrated that localization performance for stimulus durations up to 50 ms was independent of eye movements. Overall, the present findings were interpreted as evidence in support of a two-process model of localization performance in which a shift of attention is followed by a rapid eye movement toward the target location. In line with a continuous flow conception of visual information processing, our model assumes that location information takes time to develop in the visual system; hence, an observer's localization response may be based on qualitatively different processes operating on qualitatively different kinds of information. In case of short duration stimuli, information conveyed by transient cells is used by the attentional system to shift attention toward the target location; this results in course location information being available.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)