Journal of Experimental Psychology: Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

Human Perception and Performance 0096-1523/97/53.00

1997, Vol. 23, No, 3, S23-&44

Attentional and Ocular Movements

Lew B. Stelmach June M. Campsall and Chris M. Herdman

Communications Research Centre Carleton University

The relationship between eye movements and movements of attention was examined in a
series of 6 experiments. A temporal order judgment technique was used to index attentional
allocation. The results showed that endogenous movements of attention were slower than
movements of the eyes and that the participants were able to hold attention at one location
while executing an eye movement to another location. Under conditions of exogenous cueing,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

attention moved rapidly to the cued location, in advance of the eyes. These findings challenge
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the prevailing view that ocular movements must necessarily be preceded by a movement of

The human visual system has two means by which to
sample information from a scene, ocular and attentional.
Ocular sampling involves movements of the eyes and con-
sists of a series of fixations from one location to another.
Attentional sampling has been described as a movement of
an attentional spotlight (Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980)
or beam (Eriksen & Yeh, 1985) or as the repositioning of an
attentional gradient (LaBerge & Brown, 1989). An impor-
tant issue concerns the relationship between the ocular and
the attentional systems and the manner in which the two
systems interact. It is accepted that the ocular system does
not constrain the attentional system insofar as attention can
be moved in the visual field while the eyes remain fixated at
one position. The extent to which attention constrains eye
movements, however, has not been resolved. One possibil-
ity is that the eyes cannot be moved to an unattended
location in the visual field; that is, prior to each saccade,
attention must move ahead of the eyes to select the next
fixation location. Another possibility is that eye movements
can occur independently of attention such that the eyes can
be moved to a location in the visual field that has not been
targeted by attention. In the present research, we studied
whether saccadic eye movements can occur independently
Lew B. Stelmach, Communications Research Centre, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada; June M. Campsall and Chris M. Herdman, Psy-
chology Department, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada.
This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada and from the Com-
munications Research Centre, Government of Canada. •
We thank James Wa Tarn, Thorn Whalen, and especially Jo-
Anne LeFevre for comments on earlier versions of this article. We
thank Gregory Craig for assistance with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Lew B. Stelmach, Communications Research Centre, 3701 Calling
Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8S2, Canada, or to Chris M. Herd-
man, Psychology Department, Carleton University, Ottawa, On-
tario K1S 5B6, Canada. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to
Lew B. Stelmach at lew@dgbt.doc.ca or to Chris M. Herdman at
cherdman@ccs.carleton.ca.
of shifts in visual attention and examined the relative timing
of attentional and ocular movements under conditions of
endogenous and exogenous cueing.
Background
Previous research has consistently shown that with exog-
enous cueing (e.g., transient peripheral stimulation) atten-
tion precedes the eyes to the cued location (Posner, 1980;
Remington, 1980). For example, Posner required partici-
pants to (a) execute an eye movement to an exogenously
cued location, and (b) execute a speeded manual response to
a target stimulus. The target stimulus was presented either at
fixation or at the exogenously cued location. Posner found
that manual reaction times (RTs) were faster to a target
presented at an exogenously cued location as compared with
a target presented at fixation. These findings are consistent
with the notion that eye movements are preceded by shifts
of attention to the exogenously cued location.
Under endogenous cueing (e.g., a symbolic cue specify-
ing direction), the empirical evidence concerning the rela-
tive timing of attentional and ocular movements is mixed.
Remington (1980) and Klein (1980) reported that, when eye
movements are cued endogenously, attention need not be
allocated to the target location of a saccade. Remington
instructed participants to execute a saccade in response to a
centrally presented arrow cue: Detection of targets was not
enhanced prior to the saccade. Klein required participants to
execute saccades in one direction. On some trials, the par-
ticipants were to withhold making the saccade and, instead,
make a speeded manual response to the onset of a target.
The target was presented either on the side to which they
were expecting to make eye movements or on the opposite
side. It was found that manual responses were not affected
by the expectation to make a saccade: Manual RTs to targets
on the side to which the participants were expecting to make
a saccade were the same as those to targets on the opposite
side. In sum, the findings of Remington and of Klein are
consistent with the view that attention does not precede a

823
 824 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN
saccade to an endogenously cued location, implying that
eye movements can occur independently of shifts of
attention.
The relationship between eye movements and endog-
enously cued attention was also examined by Shepherd,
Findlay, and Hockey (1986; see also Shepherd & Miiller,
1989) and by Kowler, Anderson, Dosher, and Blaser (1995;
see also Deubel & Schneider, 1994; Hoffman & Subrama-
niam, 1995). In contrast with the work of Remington (1980)
and Klein (1980), Shepherd et al. suggested that when eye
movements are cued endogenously, attention is allocated to
the cued location before the eye movement is initiated.
Participants were required to execute a saccade in response
to a centrally presented arrow cue and to respond manually
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to the onset of a target. The target was presented either on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the same side as the eye movement or on the opposite side.
Manual RTs were faster to targets presented on the same
side as the eye movement and, importantly, these effects
were evident prior to the initiation of the eye movement.
Shepherd et al. concluded that attention precedes the eyes to
an endogenously cued location. A similar conclusion was
made by Kowler et al. (1995), who found that participants
could not hold attention at one location while executing a
saccade to a different location.
In summary, the research with endogenous cues is equiv-
ocal. Although the research of Remington (1980) and Klein
(1980) supported the notion that saccadic eye movements
can occur independently of attention, Shepherd et al. (1986)
and Kowler et al. (1995) suggested that eye movements are
constrained by attention.
Present Research
The primary goal of the present research was to examine
the relationship between attention and saccadic eye move-
ments under conditions of endogenous cueing. Endogenous
cueing was implemented with auditory presentation of the
words center, left, or right. Attentional allocation was as-
sessed using a temporal order judgment task in which two
stimuli were presented, one on either side of fixation, and
the research participants were required to report which
stimulus occurred first. Attentional effects are manifested in
the perceived temporal order of the two stimuli such that the
attended stimulus appears to precede the unattended stimu-
lus. The temporal order judgment technique has been shown
to be a sensitive index of attentional allocation (Stelmach &
Herdman, 1991; see also Maylor, 1985, Experiment 4). In
addition, it is a useful complementary technique to the
manual reaction time measure because it assesses atten-
tional effects without requiring participants to perform
speeded responses.
There were three primary conditions hi the experiments.
In the move-eyes condition, the participants were required to
move their eyes left or right when cued with the words left
or right, respectively. In the move-attention condition, the
participants were required to move their attention but not
their eyes in the direction specified by the word. In the
fixate-attend-center condition, the participants were re-
quired to continue fixating and attending centrally upon
hearing the word center.1 Attentional allocation was as-
sessed at various intervals following the presentation of the
verbal cue.
Six experiments are reported. Experiment 1 showed that
endogenously cued movements of attention were signifi-
cantly slower than eye movements; attention did not pre-
cede the eyes to an endogenously cued location. In Exper-
iment 2, an exogenous cueing procedure was used to show
that the temporal order judgment (TOJ) task is sensitive to
rapid presaccadic shifts of attention. Experiments 3 and 4
showed that attention and eye movements are independent
insofar as attention could be maintained endogenously at
one location in the visual field, while a saccade was exe-
cuted to a different location. Converging methods were
introduced to address ceiling-floor effects and possible de-
mand characteristics. Experiment 5 used an attentional op-
erating analysis (Kowler et al., 1995) to explore possible
trade-offs between attentional allocation and saccadic la-
tency; none were found, suggesting that eye movements can
be made independently of endogenously cued attention. In
Experiment 6, Shepherd et al.'s (1986) evidence that en-
dogenous attention precedes eye movements to a target
location was examined. We reinterpret Shepherd et al.'s
evidence in terms of response coupling between saccadic
and manual responses.
Experiment 1: Timing of Ocular and
Attentional Movements
Experiment 1 examined the relative timing of attentional
and ocular movements under conditions of endogenous
cueing. We were interested in determining whether atten-
tion needs to be allocated to the target location of an eye
movement before the eye movement is initiated. A TOJ task
was used to assess attentional allocation. For the TOJ task,
two stimuli were presented, one at a left and one at a right
marker, and observers were required to report which stim-
ulus occurred first (see Figure 1). The TOJ stimuli were
presented simultaneously (TOJ:SOA = 0 ms) or separated
by 65 ms (TOJ:SOA = 65 ms) (SOA = stimulus onset
asynchrony). The TOJ:SOA = 65 ms condition was in-
cluded to assess whether the participants were capable of
making temporal order judgments accurately. At this asyn-
1
The verbal cueing procedure was developed for two reasons.
First, pilot experiments suggested that the onset of a visual endog-
enous cue (e.g., a centrally presented arrow) interfered with mak-
ing ocular and attentional movements because the onset of the cue
functioned much like an exogenous cue by drawing attention and
eye movements to the center of the display. Also, the visual
endogenous cue interfered with perception of temporal order be-
cause the cue occurred in close spatial and temporal proximity to
the TOJ stimuli. Accordingly, the verbal cue is preferable because
it does not draw visual-spatial attention nor eye movements and
because it is not confusable with the TOJ stimuli. An auditory
endogenous cueing procedure was used successfully by Klein,
Kingstone, and Pontefract (1992).
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
1 0.7° 0.07°
r T
i
, r .
L J ~*~ L J
2.0°
2
r n . r t
L. J """ L J
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
3
K
II
i + K Participant reports which stimulus occurred first, TOJ.
02"
Figure I. Schematic representation of the display sequence. SOA — stimulus onset asynchrony;
TOJ = temporal order judgment.
chrony, the participants should be able to perceive the
veridical temporal order of the two stimuli regardless of
attentional allocation (Stelmach & Herdman, 1991).
Of primary concern was the TOJ:SOA = 0 ms condition.
Stelmach and Herdman (1991; see also Maylor, 1985)
showed that when the two stimuli are presented simulta-
neously and attention is allocated centrally (i.e., equally to
both the left and right markers), participants responded left
first and right first with equal frequency. By contrast, when
attention is allocated differentially to one or the other
marker, participants make one response more frequently
than the other. For example, when attention is allocated
toward the left marker, participants make more left-first
than right-first responses because the attended (left) stimu-
lus appears to come on before the unattended (right)
stimulus.
Three conditions were used in the present experiment:
move eyes, move attention, and fixate-attend center. In the
move-eyes condition, a directional verbal cue (the word left
or right) instructed the participants to move their eyes to the
marker on the left or on the right of fixation. The TOJ
stimuli could be displayed synchronously with the verbal
cue, such that the cue-to-stimulus (CS) SOA was 0 ms
(CS:SOA = 0 ms), or after the verbal cue and before the
initiation of a saccade (CS:SOA = 250 or 300 ms).2
At the beginning of each trial, the participants fixated and
directed their attention to a centrally presented cross (see
Figure 1). No change in eye position or in attentional
allocation should occur until some time after the presenta-
tion of the cue. Accordingly, when the TOJ stimuli coin-
cided with the cue (CS:SOA = 0 ms), there should be an
equal allocation of attention to the left and the right markers.
This should result in an even 50/50 split in left-first and
825
Display Sequence
Participant fixates and attends central cross.
v
When
^ ready, participant presses start button.
Verbal cue is presented:
left, right or center.
Participant executes a saccade (move-eyes condition),
moves attention while fixating center (move-attention condition),
or fixates and attends center (fixate-attend-center condition).
Two stimuli are presented simultaneously
or separated by a SOA.
right-first judgments, reflecting the fact that the two TOJ
stimuli were presented simultaneously. In this way, the
CS:SOA = 0 ms condition provided a baseline from which
to measure attentional effects in the TOJ paradigm.
When the TOJ stimuli were presented after the cue to
move the eyes (CS:SOA = 250 and 300 ms), one of two
outcomes was expected. On the supposition that attentional
shifts precede eye movements, attention should be allocated
to the cued location prior to the initiation of the saccade.
This attentional shift should be reflected in an uneven split
in left-first and right-first judgments. For example, when
participants are cued to make a saccade to the left marker,
presentation of the TOJ stimuli just prior to the saccade
should result in a greater proportion of left-first than of
right-first judgments, reflecting the differential allocation of
attention. An alternative possibility is that attention does not
reach the cued location in advance of the saccade. On this
supposition, there should be an equal proportion of left-first
and right-first judgments in the TOJ task, because attention
is not differentially allocated to the left and right markers.
In the move-attention condition, the participants were
required to maintain fixation on the central cross and move
their attention to the cued marker. The cues were the words
left and right presented verbally. The move-attention con-
dition was included to assess the ability of participants to
move their attention independently of moving their eyes.
2
There were two types of asynchronies in the present study. One
was the asynchrony between the verbal cue and the TOJ stimuli
(cue-to-stimulus onset asynchrony, abbreviated CS:SOA). The
other was the asynchrony between the two TOJ stimuli themselves
(abbreviated TOJ:SOA).
 826 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

Movements of attention were assessed at the same cue-to-
stimulus SOAs (CS:SOAs) as in the move-eyes condition.
In the fixate-attend-center condition, the participants
were required to keep their eyes and their attention on the
central fixation cross, such that the left and right markers
received approximately equal attention. This condition was
included to provide a baseline against which to compare
attentional allocation in the move-eyes and move-attention
conditions. The word center was used as the verbal cue.
Method
Observers
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Design and Procedure
The design of the experiment and the distribution of trials is
shown in Table 1. On half of the trials, rhe two TOJ stimuli were
presented at the same time (TOJ:SOA = 0 ms). These trials were
of primary concern in the experiment because they were used to
index attentional allocation. On the other half of the trials, the TOJ
stimuli were presented asynchronously: 25% left first {TOJ:
SOA = -65 ms) and 25% right first (TOJ:SOA = +65 ms). The
asynchronous trials were included to check that the participants
were capable of making TOJs accurately. Indeed, they were 96.4%
accurate in discriminating the veridical order of the two TOJ
stimuli when the TOJ:SOA was ±65 ms.
Each individual served in the move-eyes, move-attention, and
fixate-attend-center conditions. The individuals participated in 10

consecutive sessions of each condition before proceeding to the

Seven observers participated in the experiment: four naive in-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

next condition. Each session had 48 trials for the move-eyes and
dividuals, who were unaware of the hypotheses under investiga-
move-attention conditions (i.e., 24 left and 24 right in each con-
tion, and the three authors. The naive observers were graduate
dition), and 24 trials for the fixate-attend-center condition. Con-
students, of whom two had participated in previous experiments on
ditions were blocked because the participants found it difficult to
directed attention and temporal order judgments. Other than know-
switch from one task condition to another; however, the order of
ing about the task requirements, the naive individuals were un-
presentation of the conditions was varied across individuals. All
aware of the purpose of the experiments and were not informed of
other factors (verbal cue, CS:SOA, and TOJ: SOA) were varied
the values of the experimental parameters or of the distributions of
randomly within a session.
the trials. The participants received three-four sessions of training
Move-eyes condition. Two verbal cues left and right were used.
in performing the relevant tasks (making eye movements and
Each individual completed 480 trials (see Table 1) over the course
making temporal order judgments) before starting the experiment.
of 10 sessions. A session lasted about 20 minutes. One to three
sessions were completed per day. On the first day of testing, each
Visual Display participant completed a practice session before starting the exper-
imental sessions.
Stimuli were presented on a Tektronix 608 oscilloscope At the beginning of each trial, the individual fixated and at-
equipped with PIS phosphor and controlled by an 80386-based tended the central cross and, when ready, pressed a button to
computer in conjunction with an Interactive Electronic Systems initiate the trial. Thirty-five milliseconds later, a verbal cue (left or
display controller (Finley, 198S). There were three panels in the right) was presented and the individual executed a saccade to the
display sequence, as shown in Figure 1. The first panel consisted indicated marker on the left or on the right of fixation. The TOJ
of background elements: a fixation cross, and two markers located stimuli were presented either at the onset of the verbal cue (CS:
at 2 degrees of visual angle on either side of the cross. The second SOA = 0 ms) or after the onset of the verbal cue (CS:SOA = 250
panel was identical to die first panel and coincided with the verbal or 300 ms). At the end of a trial, the individual indicated with a
cue. The third panel consisted of the background elements (the
cross and the two location markers) plus the two TOJ stimuli
within the left and right markers. The TOJ stimuli were presented Table 1
for 10 ms each and occurred simultaneously or separated by 65 ms
Experiment 1: Design Summary Showing Number of
(arbitrarily designated as -65 ms, when the left stimulus preceded
Trials in Each Condition
the right stimulus, and as +65 ms, when the right stimulus pre-
ceded the left). CS-.SOA
The display screen was diffusely and uniformly illuminated
from the left and right sides so that the luminance of the light, TOJ:SOA 0 250 300
reflecting from the surface of the screen, was 35 cd/m2. The Move-eyes or move-attention condition
luminance of the fixation cross and position markers was 75 cd/m2. Move left
The luminance of the TOJ stimuli was 200 cd/m2. The TOJ stimuli -65 20 20 20 60
needed to be displayed at a relatively high level of luminance 0 40 40 40 120
because of their short duration. Brightness is known to covary with +65 20 20 20 60
display duration to about 100 ms (Bloch's law). Subjectively, the Total 80 80 80 240
Move right
TOJ stimuli appeared to be comfortably bright.
-65 20 20 20 60
0 40 40 40 120
+65 20 20 20 60
Verbal Cues Total 80 80 80 240
The verbal cues consisted of the words left, right, and center. Fixate-attend-center condition
The words were digitized from a female voice and played back -65 20 20 20 60
through loudspeakers under computer control using a Sound- 0 40 40 40 120
Blaster-compatible sound card. A verbal cue was presented 35 ms +65 20 20 20 60
after the individual initiated the trial. The visually presented TOJ Total 80 80 80 240
stimuli occurred synchronously with the onset of the verbal cue Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony
(CS:SOA = 0 ms) or followed the verbal cue by 250 or 300 ms. (in milliseconds); TOJ = temporal order judgment.
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS 827

button press which of the two TOJ stimuli appeared to occur first. Table 2
The verbal cue, CS:SOA, and TOJ:SOA were varied randomly Percentage of Trials Rejected in Each Experiment
from trial to trial.
The participants were instructed to fixate the central cross hair at Experiment and condition % of trials rejected
the beginning of the trial and, on hearing the verbal cue, to execute 1
a saccade as quickly as possible to the indicated marker. They were Move eyes 20
instructed to note the temporal order of the two stimuli and report Move attention 21
this at the end of the trial. Fixate-attend-center 28
Move-attention condition. In this condition, the participants 2
moved their attention to the marker indicated by the verbal cue, Move attention 8
while holding their eyes on the fixation marker. In other regards, Move eyes 15
the move-attention condition was the same as the move-eyes 3
Move eyes 19
condition.
4
Fixate-attend-center condition. In this condition, the partici- Move eyes 19
pants fixated and attended the central cross throughout each trial. 5 Participant 2 Participant 1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The verbal cue was always the word center. Because there was
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

only one verbal cue, there were half as many trials (a total of 240) Single-task
attention/temporal order
in this condition as in the other two conditions. Each session had
judgment 11 8
24 trials and lasted approximately 10 minutes. Three to five
Single-task ocular 15 3
experimental sessions were completed per day. Dual-task slow saccades 11 12
Dual-task normal
saccades 14 5
Eye Movement Monitoring Dual-task fast saccades 9 2
6 A B
The eye movement monitoring system consisted of an ISCAN
Single-task manual 19 ~5
RK-426 pupil tracker, a Cohu 4810 camera equipped with eye
Manual rejections only 2 1
magnification optics, and software running on an 80386 computer. Ocular rejections only 17 4
The system sampled the horizontal eye position at 60 Hz. Raw Single-task ocular 12 4
output from the ISCAN system was filtered using a median filter Dual task 26 10
with bin-width 15, yielding a pupil-position signal with negligible Manual rejections only 12 2
noise. A median filter is ideally suited for filtering raw pupil- Ocular rejections only 14 8
position data because it removes transient noise selectively without
smoothing stepwise changes associated with saccades. We have
demonstrated that because of the low noise, the system provides
robust and accurate estimates of saccadic latency, as compared below 1°, or if it did not occur. Moreover, because the experiment
with systems with much higher sampling rates (Tarn & Stelmach, was designed to study attentional allocation prior to the saccade,
1993). The eye monitoring system was calibrated at the beginning trials were also rejected if the saccade occurred before the TOJ
of each session by requiring the participants to fixate sequentially stimuli were presented; that is, a trial was rejected if the saccadic
five dots arranged horizontally across the screen. Each calibration latency was shorter than the CS:SOA value for the given trial.
dot was separated from its neighbor by one degree of visual angle. Rejecting trials with a saccadic latency below the CSrSOA meant
The eye-movement monitoring system was used to detect sac- that the computed mean saccadic latencies increased with CS:
cades in the move-eyes condition and to ensure that the individuals SOA; latencies were 300, 387, and 417 ms at CS:SOAs of 0, 250,
were fixating the cross hair in the other two conditions. A valid and 300 ms, respectively.
saccade was defined as a horizontal movement of at least one In the move-eyes condition, three criteria resulted in notable
degree toward the cued location. Saccadic latency was defined as numbers of rejections: (a) wrong direction of saccade in the
the time taken to initiate a saccade after the onset of the verbal cue CS:SOA = 0 ms condition; (b) latency above 500 ms in the
had been presented. Initial detection of an eye movement occurred CS.-SOA = 300 ms condition; and (c) latency below CS:SOA in
when the eye moved 0.25 degrees from the fixation cross. the CS:SOA = 300 ms condition. The direction errors at a CS:
SOA of 0 ms, may be attributed to a relatively greater sense of
urgency to execute the saccade when the TOJ stimuli were pre-
Rejection Criteria for Trials sented simultaneously with the verbal cue. Saccades with latencies
exceeding 500 ms, as well as those with latencies below the
The percentage of trials rejected in each condition of the present CS:SOA, were prominent in the CS:SOA = 300 ms condition.
experiment is summarized in Table 2. For example, a value of 25% These rejects may be explained by the relatively narrow temporal
would indicate that 1/4 of trials had to be repeated for one reason window for valid saccadic latencies in this condition. The window
or another. For comparison, Table 2 also lists the percentage of was between 300 and 500 ms, that is, above the CS:SOA and
rejected trials in the other experiments. The distribution of rejected below the upper saccadic cutoff limit.
trials is shown in greater detail in Table 3. All rejected trials were In the move attention condition and in the fixate-attend-center
repeated later in the same session. condition, observers were required to fixate the central cross hair
In the move-eyes condition, a trial was rejected if the observer throughout the trial. Rejections in these conditions may be attrib-
did not see both TOJ stimuli as a result of saccadic suppression or uted to the stringent criteria used to identify a deviation from
if there was a problem with the saccade. The saccade was consid- central fixation (any horizontal movement > 0.25°). The number
ered to be problematic if it was anticipatory (latency below 90 ms), of rejects increased with CS:SOA, as might be expected, because
excessively delayed (latency over 500 ms; Kalesnykas & Halett, observers were required to fixate for longer periods of time.
1987), in the wrong direction, if the amplitude of the saccade was Detailed analysis showed that the eye was as likely to drift away
 828 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

Table 3 To estimate the sensitivity of the statistical analysis, at-

Experiment 1: Distribution (Percentage) of tentional effects were simulated. The goal of the simulation
Rejected Trials was to estimate how much the frequency of left-first re-
sponses at CS:SOAs = 250 and 300 ms had to differ from
CS.-SOA
that at CS:SOA = 0 ms to produce a significant two-way
Reason for rejection 250 300 interaction between condition (left/right) and CS:SOA. Pro-
Move-eyes condition gressively larger effects were introduced at CS:SOAs of 250
Saw fewer than 2 stimuli 0.0 1.8 3.8 and 300 ms until a significant two-way interaction was
Low amplitude of saccade 3.9 2.7 3.6 observed. For the move-attention condition, it was found
No saccade 4.0 0.3 0.3 that the left and right conditions needed to differ by only
Wrong direction of saccade 13.3 5.6 7.0
Latency below 90 ms 1.2 1.4 1.8 3.5% at a CS:SOA of 250 ms and by only 6.0% at a
Latency above 500 ms 0.3 4.6 25.2 CS:SOA of 300 ms to produce a significant two-way inter-
Latency below CS:SOA 0.0 3.7 15.5 action between condition (left/right) and CS:SOA. In the
Total 22.7 ' 20.1 57.2 move-eyes condition, the corresponding difference was
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9.0% and 18%. Stelmach and Herdman (1991) found that

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Move-attention condition
Eye moved 17.5 41.5 41.0 attentional effects of 6X1% and more were not uncommon.
Thus, we conclude that the design and statistical procedures
Fixate-attend-center condition
Eye moved 12.9 40.2 46.9
used in the present study were sufficiently sensitive to
detect attentional effects of reasonably small magnitude.
Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony
(in milliseconds).
Attentional Effects at CS:SOAs Greater
Than 300 ms
from the attended side as toward the attended side (55.3% away
The three values of CS:SOA were included in the design
and 44.7% toward).
of the experiment to analyze the relative timing of atten-
tional and ocular movements. At CS:SOA = 0 ms, the TOJ
Results and Discussion stimuli were presented synchronously with the verbal cue.
This condition was intended to capture the initial attentional
The primary goal of the experiment was to examine the
state, when attention was directed toward the central cross.
relative timing of attentional and ocular movements. If
Accordingly, the near 50/50 split in left-first/right-first TOJ
attention preceded the eyes to the cued location, the effects
responses at CS:SOA = 0 ms indicates that observers did
of attentional allocation should be evident prior to the
not have time to process the verbal direction cue before the
initiation of the saccade. That is, in the move-eyes condition
TOJ stimuli were presented. Importantly, this 50/50 split
there should be a greater proportion of left-first TOJ re-
was found even at longer CS:SOAs (250 and 300 ms)
sponses in the move-left condition and a greater proportion
indicating that attention did not shift to the saccadic target
of right-first TOJ responses in the move-right condition. before initiation of the saccade.
Alternatively, if attention did not precede the eyes to the To estimate the amount of time required to redirect at-
saccadic target, the effects of attentional allocation should tention from the central fixation cross to an eccentric
not be evident prior to the saccade. In other words, the
marker, additional longer CS:SOAs were tested in the
proportion of left-first and right-first TOJ responses at TOJ:
SOA = 0 ms should be 50/50 across all conditions.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of left-first responses when
TOJ:SOA-Oms Endogenous verbal cue
the TOJ stimuli were presented simultaneously (TOJ:
SOA = 0 ms) as a function of the interval between the
move-eyes
left °
verbal cue and the TOJ stimuli (CS:SOA) for die move- right .
eyes, move-attention, and the fixate-attend-center condi-
move-attention
tions of the experiment. The results formed a pattern of
horizontal lines clustered around 50%. This indicates that right T
there were no effects of attention on the TOJs at all values
fixate-attend
of CS:SOA, in all conditions of the experiment. Impor- -center o
tantly, in the move-eyes condition, presenting the TOJ stim-
uli just prior to the initiation of a saccade (CS:SOA = 250
and 300 ms) had no effect on temporal order judgments; the § 0 250 300
"- Asynchrony between verbal cue
percentage of left-first responses remained at or near the and TOJ stimuli (CS:SOA)(ms)
50% level (squares, Figure 2). The same pattern was ob-
served for the move-attention and the fixate-attend-center Figure 2. Experiment 1: Percentage of left-first temporal order
conditions (triangles and circles, Figure 2). A 5 (Condition) judgment (TOJ) responses as a function of the cue-to-stimulus
X 3 (CS-.SOA) repeated-measures ANOVA did not show (CS) stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) for the three conditions.
any significant effects. Error bars show the standard error of the mean.
 ATTENTTONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
move-attention condition. These were tested in extra ses-
sions at the end of the experiment. The CS:SOAs were 500,
750, and 1,500 ms (a CS:SOA of 0 ms was included as a
baseline). Methods and procedures were the same as in the
move-attention condition described above. The results for
the additional CS:SOAs are shown in Figure 3 along with
the previous data. Figure 3 shows a change in the number of
left-first responses at the longer values of CS:SOA, indicat-
ing that the participants shifted attention toward the cued
marker. Evidently, movements of attention were more slug-
gish than movements of the eyes; more than 300 ms was
required to redirect attention from central fixation to one of
the eccentric markers.
On the basis of the results of the present experiment, we
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
conclude that more than 300 ms is required to redirect
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
attention from the central fixation cross to one of the ec-
centric markers when attention is cued using an endogenous
verbal cue. Clearly, a saccade can be executed more rapidly
than an endogenously cued movement of attention.
Controlling for Eye Drift
An alternative explanation for the attentional effects, ob-
served at long CS:SOAs in the present experiment, is that
the observers' eyes drifted away from fixation, thereby
placing the attended marker within a more sensitive area of
the visual system. According to this explanation, the in-
creased number of left-first responses in the left-attend
condition and the increased number of right-first responses
in the right-attend condition could be attributed to differen-
tial retinal sensitivity rather than to differential attention.
We believe that this alternative can be rejected for three
reasons. First, eye movements were monitored and a trial
was rejected if the eye moved more than 0.25° away from
fixation. The sensitivity of the pupil tracking system and its
ability to detect an eye drift of 0.25° was verified using an
artificial eye (see Stelmach & Herdman, 1991, Figure 3).
The pupil monitoring system was sufficiently sensitive to
detect drifts of the eyes away from fixation.
TOJ:SOA=Oms Endogenous verbal cue
100
£ 75
= 0 500 1000 1500
°- Asynchrony between verbal cue
and TOJ stimuli (CS:SOA) (ms)
Figure 3. Experiment 1: Percentage of left-first temporal order
judgment (TOJ) responses using the longer cue-to-stimulus (CS)
stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) for (he move-attention condi-
tion. Error bars show the standard error of mean.
829
Second, a detailed analysis of trials during which drift
was detected at the long CS:SOAs (500, 750, and 1,500 ms)
indicated that the eyes were as likely to drift away from the
attended side as toward the attended side (46.9% away and
53.1% toward). The retinal sensitivity explanation would
predict more frequent drift toward the attended side.
Third, in a supplementary control experiment, it was
found that direction of attention, and not fixation position
per se, was the key factor determining perceived temporal
order. The goal of the control experiment was to determine
whether attending or looking was the critical factor in
producing the effects on temporal order judgments at long
CS:SOAs. Ocular drift was induced by systematically dis-
placing the fixation marker to the right or to the left of
center by 0.0°, 0.25°, or 0.35°. Direction of attention was
manipulated by instructing the participants to attend toward
the left or the right marker before initiating the trial. The
retinal sensitivity hypothesis predicts that the pattern of
TOJs should be determined by fixation position such that
the stimulus closer to the center of the fovea would be
judged to occur first. By contrast, the attentional hypothesis
predicts that TOJs should be related to the direction of
attention and not fixation position. The results of this con-
trol experiment confirmed the predictions of the attentional
hypothesis as there were more left-first responses in the
left-attend condition and more right-first responses in the
right-attend condition. These findings provide a compelling
argument that eye drift was not an important factor in the
present research.
Experiment 2: Exogenous Cueing
The results of Experiment 1 showed that attention did not
precede a saccade to the target location under conditions of
endogenous cueing. In Experiment 2, the relationship be-
tween exogenous cueing and eye movements was exam-
ined. Research has shown that the timecourse of attentional
allocation is faster for exogenous as compared with endog-
enous cueing (Jonides, 1981; Nakayama & Mackeben,
1989; Remington, 1980). Evidence that exogenously cued
attention precedes a saccade to the target location would
show that the TOJ task is indeed capable of indexing rapid
shifts in attentional allocation following a cue.
Exogenous cueing was implemented by increasing the
brightness of one of the location markers. Attentional allo-
cation was assessed at various asynchronies relative to the
exogenous cue (CS:SOA = 0, 50, 150, and 300 ms). An
attentional effect was not expected at CS:SOA of 0 ms
because the exogenous cue and the TOJ stimuli occurred
simultaneously and, thus, the exogenous cue would not have
time to draw attention. Thus, at a CS:SOA of 0 ms, there
should be an equal number of left-first and right-first re-
sponses in the TOJ task because attention would remain
directed centrally. At longer CS:SOAs, the exogenous cue
should have time to draw attention, resulting in a differential
proportion of left-first/right-first responses.
 830 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

Method Table 4
Experiment 2: Distribution (Percentage) of
Observers Rejected Trials

Six individuals participated in the experiment. All had partici- CS:SOA

pated in a subset of the previous experiment. Two of the partici- Reason for rejection 50 150 300
pants were the authors.
Move-eyes condition
Saw fewer than 2 stimuli 1.5 1.2 5.4 10.5
Design and Procedure Low amplitude of saccade 7.3 6.4 6.1 5.4
No saccade 9.4 2.0 0.5 0.2
Wrong direction of saccade 24.5 9.9 3.3 3.6
Cueing procedure and temporal order judgments. The exoge-
Latency below 90 ms 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4
nous cue consisted of a 20-ms brightening (from 75 cd/m2 to 150
Latency above 500 ms 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5
cd/m2) of the left or the right marker in the display. The endoge- Latency below CS:SOA 0.0 0.0 0.5 N/A
nous verbal cue was not presented. Four CS:SOAs were used: 0, Total 43.3 20.1 16.0 20.6
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

50,150, and 300 ms. TOJ:SOAs of 0 ms and ± 65 ms were used.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

As before, the TOJrSOA = 0 ms condition was used to index Move-attention condition

attentional effects, and the TOJ:SOA = ±65-ms conditions were Eye moved 22.5 16.8 26.3 34.3
used to check that the participants were able to perform the TOJ Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony
task. In these latter conditions, the participants were 89.9% correct (in milliseconds); N/A = not applicable.
in discriminating the veridical temporal order of the two TOI
stimuli. Errors in discriminating the veridical temporal order were
slightly greater than in Experiment 1 because of the strong cueing
effect of the exogenous cue: On some trials, participants perceived the same as the move-attention condition of Experiment 1 with the
the temporally lagging stimulus as occurring first (see Maylor, exception that exogenous cueing was used in place of endogenous
1985; Stelmach & Herdman, 1991). cueing. Exogenous cues are assumed to draw attention reflexively
The participants completed 384 trials in 6 sessions of each type (Jonides, 1981; Nakayama & Mackeben, 1989; Posner, 1980;
(move eyes and move attention), for a total of 1,024 trials in 12 Yantis & Jonides, 1990). Participants were required to fixate
sessions, over the course of 4-5 days. Trials were distributed in a centrally on each trial The tendency for the eyes to drift away
manner similar to that shown in Table 1. There were 24 trials at from fixation increased with the duration of the trial (i.e., as the
each combination of cue (left or right) and CS:SOA (0, 50, 150, CS:SOA was lengthened, see Table 4).
and 300 ms), at a TOJ:SOA of 0 ms. There were 12 trials at each
combination cue and CS:SOA at TOJrSOAs of ±65 ms.
The participants completed all six sessions of one type before
beginning sessions of the other type. The order of session type Results and Discussion
(move eyes and move attention) was varied among the individuals.
TOJ:SOA, CS:SOA, and cue were varied randomly within a As in Experiment 1, temporal order judgments at TOJ:
session. SOA = 0 ms were used to index attentional allocation. As
Exogenous cue: Move-eyes condition. This condition was the shown in Figure 4, brightening a location marker had a
same as the move-eyes condition of Experiment 1 with the fol- strong effect on perceived temporal order at CStSOAs of 50
lowing exceptions. Observers were instructed to move their eyes to and 150 ms, corroborating the exogenous cueing effects of
the marker that brightened. Ocular latencies are typically snorter Jonides (1981), Nakayama and Mackeben (1989), Posner
under conditions of exogenous cueing as compared with endoge- (1980), Yantis and Jonides (1990), and others. Brightening
nous cueing. In Experiment 2, mean saccadic latencies were 229, the left marker resulted in a preponderance of left-first TOJ
219, 227, and 227 ms at CS:SOAs of 0, 50, 150, and 300 ms,
respectively. Because of the relatively short saccadic latencies, the
rejection criteria (see earlier) were modified: A trial was rejected TOJ:SOA-Oms Exogenous brightening cue
if the saccadic latency was below CS:SOA, that is, if the saccade
occurred before the TOJ stimuli were presented, for only the three
shortest CS:SOAs (0, 50, and 150 ms). Accordingly, TOJs mea-
sured presaccadic effects for the three shortest CS:SOAs and a
mixture of presaccadic effects (64% trials) and postsaccadic ef-
fects (36% trials) for the 300-ms condition.
The percentage of rejected trials is shown in Table 2. The
distribution of rejected trials is shown in Table 4. The patterns in
Table 4 are similar to those for Experiment 1 (Table 3) with the
following exceptions. Saccadic latencies rarely exceeded the upper
cutoff of 500 ms at any CS:SOA. This is explained by the rela-
tively short saccadic latencies to the exogenous cue compared with Asynchrony between exogenous c
the endogenous cues used in the other experiments. The relatively and TOJ stimuli (CS:SOA) (ma)
high number of saccades in the wrong direction at a CS:SOA of 0
ms indicates that observers were initiating their eye movements Figure 4. Experiment 2: Percentage of left-first temporal order
before fully decoding the exogenous cue or that the onset of the judgment (TOJ) responses as a function of the cue-to-stimulus
TOJ stimuli was occasionally mistaken for the cue. (CS) stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) using an exogenous cue.
Exogenous cue: Move-attention condition. This condition was Error bars show the standard error of mean.
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
responses, whereas brightening the right marker resulted in
a preponderance of right-first TOJ responses. As typically
found with exogenous cues, the cueing effect had a rapid
onset (within 50 ms) that was much shorter than the latency
of a saccade. As indicated by die near overlap of the solid
and dotted lines in Figure 4, results were similar for both the
move-eyes and move-attention conditions. The similarity
between the move-eyes and move-attention conditions sug-
gests that moving the eyes did not add to the attentional
effect already generated by the exogenous cue. A 2 (Con-
dition: Move Eyes and Move Attention) X 2 (Cue: Left and
Right) X 4 (CS:SOA: 0, 50, 150, 300) repeated-measures
ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of Cue, F(\, 5) =
2,773.5, MSB = 29.4, p < .001, and a significant interaction
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
between Cue and CS:SOA, F(3,15) = 541.7, MSE = 48.6,
p < .001. In sum, the results of Experiment 2 showed that
attention preceded the eyes to an exogenously cued location.
Importantly, the results of this experiment demonstrate that
the TOJ task is sensitive to rapid shifts of attention.3
The effect of the exogenous cue was greatest at CS:SOAs
of 50 and 150 ms and diminished at 300 ms. This pattern of
results raised the question of whether attentional effects
might occur with endogenous cues within the 50-150-ms
window. In Experiment 1, the 50-150-ms window was not
assessed because pilot research had indicated that atten-
tional effects were absent at these CS;SOAs. Nevertheless,
we re-examined the effect of endogenous cueing in the
move-eyes condition at these CS:SOAs. No attentional ef-
fects were observed with endogenous cueing. As in Exper-
iment 1, there was approximately a 50/50 split in left-first/
right-first TOJ responses at all CS:SOAs.
Experiment 3: Dissociating Attention and Eye
Movements (Method of Constant Stimuli)
The relationship between attention and eye movements
was further examined in Experiment 3 by studying whether
attention can be maintained at one location in the visual
field while executing an eye movement to another location.
The participants were required first to fixate center and
direct attention toward one of die markers and, then, to
make a saccade either to the attended marker or to the
unattended marker. As before, attentional allocation was
assessed using the TOJ technique.
If attention need not precede an eye movement to a
saccadic target, then the participants should be able to hold
attention at one location while executing a saccade to an-
other location. Accordingly, the requirement to execute an
eye movement should have no effect on TOJs. For example,
if participants maintain attention on the left marker then
there should be a preponderance of left-first responses, even
when an eye movement is executed toward the right marker.
Alternatively, if eye movements must be preceded by a
shift of attention, then it should be impossible for the
participants to maintain attention at one location while
executing a saccade to another location; attention would
need to be shifted from the initial location to the saccadic
target prior to the saccade. For example, if attention was
831
directed toward the left marker at the beginning of a trial
and, then, the participants were cued to execute a saccade to
the right marker, attention should shift from the left to the
right marker prior to the saccade. Accordingly, this would
be reflected in a greater proportion of right-first judgments
on the TOJ task.
In summary, Experiment 3 compared TOJs before sac-
cadic programming begins (CS:SOA = 0 ms) with TOJs
when the saccade is about to be executed (CS:SOA = 300
ms). This was done to determine whether attention could be
maintained at one location while executing a saccade to
another location.
Method
Observers
Six individuals (including 2 of the authors) participated in the
experiment. All had participated in the previous experiment.
Visual Display, Design, and Procedure
The display, design, and procedure were similar to those in the
move-eyes condition of Experiment 1, with the following excep-
tions. The display and procedure had to be modified so that both
the required direction of attention and the direction of the saccade
could be communicated to the participant on each trial. A visually
presented arrow was used to communicate the required direction of
attention. The arrow replaced the fixation cross (see Figure 1) in all
panels of the display and pointed left or right. At the beginning of
each trial, the participants were given unlimited time to direct their
attention to the marker indicated by the arrow. They were informed
that they should be confident that their attention was directed in the
appropriate direction before initiating the trial. The individuals
then pressed the start button to initiate the trial sequence. The
verbal cue was presented 35 ms after the button press. The TOJ
stimuli were presented synchronously with the verbal cue (CS:
SOAs = 0 ms) or following the verbal cue, prior to the saccade
(CS:SOA = 300 ms).
TOJ:SOAs of 0 ms and ±65 ms were used. As in Experiment 1,
the TOJ:SOA = 0 ms condition was used to assess attentional
effects. The TOJ:SOA = ±65 ms conditions were used to check
that the individuals were able to perform me TOJ task. A total of
384 trials were completed by each participant in six sessions, over
the course of 2-3 days. Proportionately more trials were presented
at TOJrSOA = 0 ms than at TOJ:SOA = ±65 ms. There were 24
trials at each combination of direction of attention (left or right),
saccade direction (left or right), and CS:SOA (0 or 300 ms) at a
TOJ:SOA of 0 ms. There were 12 trials at each combination of
factors at TOJ:SOAs of ±65 ms. Direction of attention, direction
3
It could be argued that the exogenous cueing effects in the
present experiment were not due to attention per se but to temporal
integration of the cue and the TOJ stimuli. We note, however, that
Nakayama and Mackeben (1989) found similar exogenous cueing
effects in a search task: a rapid rise in search performance followed
by a decrease. It is unlikely that temporal integration could explain
changes in search performance. We conclude that the effects of
exogenous cueing reflect shifts of attention.
 832 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

of the saccade, TOJ:SOA, and CS:SOA were varied randomly Attention: Arrow CUB Eye movement: Verbal cue

8
within a session.
Consistent with Experiment 1, participants were 94.6% correct
in discriminating the veridical temporal order of the two TOJ Attend left initially
stimuli in the TOI:SOA = ±65 ms conditions. The percentage of
rejected trials is shown in Table 2, and their distribution is shown TOJ:SOA-Oms
in Table 5. The pattern of rejected trials was similar to that in
Experiment 1 (Table 3). Saccades were more likely to be in the
wrong direction at CS:SOA = 0 ms than at CS:SOA = 300 ms. j Attend right initially
For saccades that were in the wrong direction (i.e., opposite to that
specified by the verbal cue), they were more likely (65% vs. 35%) — 0
to be toward the attended side; that is, when the individuals 0 300
executed a saccade after incomplete decoding of the verbal cue, Asynchrony between verbal cue
and TOJ stimuli (CS:SOA) (ms)
they were more likely to move toward the attended side. The
narrow temporal window for valid saccades at CS:SOA = 300 ms
Figure 5. Experiment 3: Percentage of left-first temporal order
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(above the CS:SOA and below the cutoff value, 300 to 500)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

explains the higher percentage of rejections in this condition. judgment (TOJ) responses as a function of the cue-to-stimulus
Mean saccadic latencies were 301 and 428 ms at a CS:SOA of (CS) stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) when attention was di-
0 and 300 ms, respectively. These differences in mean latency can rected left or right prior to initiation of the eye movement. Error
be attributed in part to the rejection criteria used in the experiment: bars show the standard error of mean.
Rejecting trials with saccadic latency below the CS-.SOA resulted
in larger mean latencies in the CS:SOA = 300 ms condition than
in the CS:SOA = 0 ms condition. Mean saccadic latencies toward left-first responses). Importantly, executing a saccade to a
the attended side were similar to those toward the unattended side marker opposite the attended side did not affect the pattern
(361 vs. 367 ms, respectively). of TOJs. The participants continued to perceive the attended
stimulus as occurring first. We conclude that attention can
be held at one location in the visual field while an eye
Results and Discussion
movement is executed to another location. Attention need
The goal of this experiment was to determine whether not be shifted to a saccadic target before the execution of a
attention could be maintained at one location in the visual saccade.
field while simultaneously executing a saccade to another
location. Of primary importance were the results in the Experiment 4: Dissociating Attention and Eye
TOJ:SOA = 0 ms condition (see Figure 5). The results Movements (PEST Method)
showed that only direction of attention had an appreciable
effect on temporal order judgments. Neither CS:SOA (0 vs. Experiment 4 was designed to address two methodolog-
300 ms) nor direction of eye movements had an appreciable ical issues. First, it could be argued that, in the previous
effect. This was confirmed with a 2 (Initial Direction of experiments, demand characteristics may have played a role
Attention) X 2 (CS:SOA) X 2 (Direction of Eye Move- in the response of the participants. Because no objectively
ment) repeated-measures ANOVA in which only the effect correct response exists at TOJ:SOA = 0 ms, individuals
of Direction of Attention was significant, F(l, 5) = 167.1, may have elected to respond right-first in the right-attend
MSB = 23.48, p < .001. As shown in Figure 5, attending to conditions and left-first in the left-attend conditions. Previ-
the left marker resulted in a preponderance of left-first ous research has ruled out demand characteristics as a viable
responses, whereas attending to the right marker resulted in explanation of attentional effects on TOIs (Stelmach &
a preponderance of right-first responses (i.e., relatively few Herdman, 1991). Nonetheless, it is important to demon-
strate in the present context that demand characteristics are
an unlikely explanation for the observed effects. Second, in
Table 5 Experiment 3, participants' responses approached either
Experiment 3: Distribution (Percentage) of ceiling (92.9% left-first) or floor levels (17.5% left-first) on
Rejected Trials the TOJ task, possibly concealing the effects of saccades on
attentional allocation.
CS:SOA
Reason for rejection in In Experiment 4, a sensitive psychophysical procedure,
move-eyes condition 0 300 PEST (Taylor & Creelman, 1967), was implemented that
Saw fewer than 2 stimuli 1.9 6.1 assessed attentional effects at TOJ:SOAs greater than 0 ms
Low amplitude of saccade 7.5 6.2 and that was not susceptible to ceiling/floor effects. With
No saccade 10.4 2.3 PEST, TOJ:SOA is allowed to vary freely. On most trials,
Wrong direction of saccade 18.9 6.1 temporal order judgments are made at TOJ:SOAs greater
Latency below 90 ms 0.8 2.1
20.0
than 0 ms, at which an objectively correct response exists in
Latency above 500 ms 0.7
Latency below CS:SOA 0.0 17.0 the two-alternative forced choice regimen. PEST was
Total 40.2 59.8 adapted to estimate the point of greatest temporal uncer-
Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony tainty, that is, the TOJ:SOA at which left-first and right-first
(in milliseconds). responses were produced with equal frequency (50% each).
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS 833

In previous research using PEST, Stelmach and Herdman Table 6

(1991) showed that the point of greatest temporal uncer- Experiment 4: Distribution (Percentage) of
tainty is a sensitive index of attentions] allocation. Rejected Trials
The design of Experiment 4 was similar to that of Exper-
CS:SOA
iment 3. In advance of each trial, the participants directed Reason for rejection in
attention either to the left or to the right marker and, men, on move-eyes condition 0 300
cue, executed a saccade to either marker. As before, the TOJ Saw fewer than 2 stimuli 0.2 4.2
stimuli were presented either at the same time as the cue Low amplitude of saccade 11.3 11.6
(CS:SOA = 0 ms) or after the cue but prior to the saccade No saccade 11.1 2.2
Wrong direction of saccade 15.4 8.0
(CS:SOA = 300 ms). PEST varied the TOJ:SOA until it had
Latency below 90 ms 1.5 1.3
estimated the point of greatest temporal uncertainty, that is, Latency above 500 ms 0.5 23.1
until observers reported the left and right stimuli as occur- Latency below CS:SOA 0.0 9.6
ring first with equal frequency. Total 40.0 60.0
The critical conditions are those in which attention was Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

directed to the marker on one side of fixation, whereas the (in milliseconds).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

saccade was directed to the marker on the opposite side. On

the basis of the results of Experiment 3, we would expect
that the strength of attentioaal allocation in these conditions
would not be diminished by the requirement to dissociate
the direction of attention and the direction of the saccade.
Method
Observers
by the verbal cue), they were nearly as likely to be away from the
attended side as toward the attended side (45% vs. 55%).
In the CS:SOA = 0 ms condition, mean saccadic latency was
306 ms compared with 423 ms in the CS:SOA = 300 ms condi-
tion. This compares favorably with the saccadic latencies obtained
in Experiment 3 (301 and 428 ms at CS:SOAs of 0 and 300 ms,
respectively). Mean saccadic latencies toward the attended side
were similar to those toward the unattended side (360 compared
with 369 ms, respectively).

Four individuals (including 2 of the authors) participated in the

Results and Discussion
experiment. All had participated in the previous experiments.
The results of Experiment 4 using PEST (see Figure 6)
replicated those of Experiment 3. It was found that the point
Visual Display, Design, and Procedure of greatest temporal uncertainty (i.e., the TOJ:SOA at which
left-first and right-first responses occurred with equal fre-
The display, design, and procedure were the same as those in
quency) depended on the direction of attention and was not
Experiment 3 with the following exceptions. The CS:SOA (either
influenced by the direction of the saccade. As shown in
0 or 300 ms) was held constant during each session to keep the
testing tune to under 25 minutes per session. The other two factors Figure 6, the unattended stimulus had to be displayed about
in the experiment (initial direction of attention, left or right, and 30 ms in advance of the attended stimulus for both stimuli
the direction of the saccade, left or right) were varied randomly to be judged as occurring first with equal frequency. This is
within a session.
Attentional allocation was assessed using PEST, implemented in
software on the computer. During each session, PEST made four
estimates of the point of greatest temporal uncertainty, one for Attention: Arrow cue Eye movement: Verbal cue
each of the four conditions tested in the session (2 Directions of
Attention X 2 Directions of Saccade). The estimates were made in i move-eyes
parallel. At the beginning of every session, the TOJ:SOA was set right .
to a random value within the range +64 to —64 ms. As the session uj 25 I Attend left initially *
0.
progressed, PEST monitored the participants' responses rrial-by-
trial and adjusted the TOJ.'SOA, searching for the point of greatest | 0
temporal uncertainty for each condition. In each session, an aver-
age of 23 trials was required to converge on the critical TOJ:SOA . ± Attendrightinitially z ,
|-25
for each of the four conditions tested (for a total of 92 trials per 1 f
session). The critical TOJ.'SOA indicates the point at which ob-
servers could not reliably differentiate the temporal order of the _**n
0 300
two stimuli. Each observer served in 6 sessions at each level of
Asynchrony between verbal cue
CS:SOA (0 ms and 300 ms) for a total of 12 sessions. The and TOJ stimuli (CS:SOA) (ms)
participants completed the sessions over the course of 4-5 days.
The frequency of rejected trials (Table 2) and the distribution of
rejected trials (Table 6) was similar to that in the move-eyes Figure 6. Experiment 4: Point of greatest temporal uncertainty
conditions of the other experiments (Tables 3 and 5). As in the as a function of the cue-to-stimulus (CS) stimulus onset asyn-
previous experiments, there was an increase in the rejection rate at chrony (SOA) when attention was directed left or right prior to
a CS:SOA of 300 ms as compared with 0 ms. For saccades that initiation of the eye movement. TOJ = temporal order judgment
were in the wrong direction (i.e., opposite to the direction specified Error ban show the standard error of mean.
 834 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN
comparable with the estimates obtained in earlier research
(Stelmach & Herdman, 1991).
The point of greatest temporal uncertainty in the CS:
SOA = 0 ms condition estimated the baseline strength of
attentional allocation. At this CS:SOA, the TOJ stimuli
were presented concurrently with the verbal cue to move the
eyes, before the cue could be decoded. By comparison, the
point of greatest temporal uncertainty at a CS:SOA of 300
ms estimated the strength of attentional allocation just prior
to the execution of the saccade. Because the point of great-
est temporal uncertainty estimated by PEST did not vary as
a function of CS:SOA nor of the direction of the eye
movement (toward or away from the attended marker), we
conclude that the participants were able to maintain atten-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tion at one location in the visual field while directing their
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
eyes to another location.
On issues of methodology, Experiment 4 was not suscep-
tible to ceiling or floor effects because the TOJ:SOA at
points of greatest temporal uncertainty was unconstrained.
Also, the results cannot be attributed to demand character-
istics because the TOJ:SOA was greater than 0 ms in most
of the trials. We conclude that TOJ responses in the left- and
right-attend conditions reflect shifts of attention.
Experiment 5: Attentional Operating Analysis
Experiment 5 investigated possible trade-offs between
attentional allocation and saccadic latency. This experiment
was based on a paradigm reported by Kowler et al. (1995)
in which trade-offs in performance between a saccadic task
and a letter identification task were studied (see also Deubel
& Schneider, 1994). As in the present report, Kowler et al.
examined whether attention can be maintained at one loca-
tion in the visual field while a saccade is directed to another
location.
To index attentional allocation, Kowler et al. (1993) used
identification accuracy of an alphabetic character. In the
critical conditions, the participants were required to identify
an alphabetic character at the attended location while mak-
ing a saccade to a different location. The results showed that
the participants could perform the letter identification task
accurately only by delaying their saccades by approximately
35-75 ms. They could also make fast saccades, but this
resulted in reduced accuracy on the letter identification task
(Kowler et al., 1995, Experiment 4, Figure 11). In general,
saccades and letter identification could not be performed
simultaneously at the same level as each could be performed
individually. Kowler et al. concluded that the saccadic and
identification tasks shared a common attentional compo-
nent; the participants were not able to maintain attention at
one location in the visual field while executing a saccade to
a different location (i.e., without paying a penalty in sac-
cadic latency). Because these conclusions are at odds with
those of the present research, we felt that it would be
important to combine Kowler et al.'s attentional operating
analysis with pur TOJ methodology.
The implication of Kowler et al.'s (1995) results is that
individuals can elect to delay a saccade long enough to
perform the requisite perceptual task at one location in the
visual field before moving attention to the saccadic target at
a different location in the visual field. Had the participants
adopted a similar strategy in the present experiments, that is,
if they systematically delayed their saccades to maintain
attention on the cued location for the TOJ task, then mean
saccadic latencies should vary with CS:SOA. To wit, mean
saccadic latency increased systematically with CS:SOA in
all the experiments reported here. We argue, however, mat
these changes in saccadic latency reflect the rejection cri-
teria adopted in the experiments namely that as the duration
of the CS:SOA increased, more fast saccades were rejected,
thereby artificially inflating the mean latency. However, to
provide a common point of comparison between the re-
search of Kowler et al. and the present research, a direct
evaluation of the relationship between attentional allocation
and saccadic latency was performed.
The design of Experiment 5 paralleled the random sac-
cade condition of Experiment 4 in Kowler et al. (1995).
There were five types of sessions: two single-task and three
dual-task. The single-task sessions estimated baseline levels
of performance against which dual-task performance could
be compared. Display, design, and procedures were identi-
cal in all sessions, except for the instructions.
The single-task attentional/TOJ sessions were designed to
estimate the optimal attentional effect. In these sessions, the
participants were instructed to allocate attention in response
to the arrow cue and to perform the TOJ task alone. They
were told to ignore the verbal cue. In a similar fashion, the
single-task ocular sessions were designed to estimate the
optimal saccadic latency. In these sessions, the participants
were instructed to execute a saccade as fast as possible in
response to the verbal cue and to ignore the arrow cue. In
the dual-task sessions, they were required to perform the
attentional/TOJ task concurrently with the saccadic task.
There were three types of dual-task sessions: normal-, fast-,
and slow-latency sessions. In the normal-latency sessions,
the participants were instructed to execute saccades with
latencies that seemed natural. In the fast- and slow-latency
sessions, they were instructed to execute saccades with
latencies that were either as fast as possible or slower than
normal, respectively.
The goal of the experiment was to discover any trade-offs
that might exist between attentional allocation, as assessed
using the TOJ task, and saccadic latency. Of primary con-
cern was whether the attentionalfTOJ effect diminished as
the individuals executed saccades with ever shorter laten-
cies (progressing from slow-, to normal-, to fast-latency
sessions). If the attentional effect diminishes as saccadic
latency becomes progressively shorter, then this would sug-
gest that the saccadic task draws attention away from the
attentional/TOJ task and that the two tasks share a common
attentional component. Alternatively, if the attentional ef-
fect stays at the same level, then this would suggest that the
saccadic task may be executed without drawing attention
away from the attentional/TOJ task; that is, attention can be
maintained at one location while a saccade is executed to
another location.
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
Method
Observers
Two individuals (one naive individual as Participant 1 and one
of the authors as Participant 2) took part in the experiment. Both
had participated in the previous experiments. Each participant
completed 30 sessions over the course of 6-8 days.
Visual Display, Design, and Procedure
The display and procedure were similar to those of Experiment
4. Single-task ocular sessions were used to estimate the optimal
saccadic latency. In the single-task ocular sessions, the participants
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
were instructed to execute a saccade with the shortest possible
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
latency in the direction indicated by the verbal cue. The directional
arrow and the TOJ stimuli were presented, but the participants
were told to ignore them.
Single-task TOJ sessions were used to estimate the optimal
attentional effect, as indexed by the point of greatest temporal
uncertainty. In the single-task TOJ sessions, the participants were
instructed to fixate centrally throughout each trial, attend to the
side indicated by the arrow cue, and make a TOJ response. They
were told to ignore the verbal cue.
Dual-task sessions were used to assess whether the individuals
could perform both tasks (saccade and attentional/TOJ) together
with the same efficacy as they performed each task alone. In the
dual-task sessions, they were instructed to attend to the side
indicated by the arrow cue, to execute a saccade in the direction
indicated by the verbal cue, and to make a TOJ response. There
were three types of dual-task sessions: normal latency, fast latency,
and slow latency. In the normal-latency sessions, the two partici-
pants were instructed to execute saccades with the latencies that
seemed most natural. In the fast-latency sessions, they were in-
structed to execute saccades as soon as possible after hearing the
verbal cue. In the slow-latency sessions, they were instructed to
make saccades with latencies more slowly than in the normal-
latency condition.
The order of testing was single-task ocular sessions, single-task
attentional/TOJ sessions, dual-task normal-latency sessions, dual-
task fast-latency sessions, and dual-task slow-latency sessions.4
The display parameters were identical across session types. The
individuals were given three-six practice sessions before complet-
ing six experimental sessions of each type. A session lasted about
20 minutes.
Attentional allocation was assessed using PEST. As in Experi-
ment 4, four estimates of the point of greatest temporal uncertainty
were made, one for each of the four conditions tested in each
session (2 Directions of Attention X 2 Directions of Saccade). In
each session, PEST required, on average, 16 trials for Participant
1 and 20 trials for Participant 2 to converge on the critical TOJ:
SOA for each of the four conditions tested (for a total of 80 and 64
trials per session, respectively). The initial direction of attention
indicated by the arrow cue (left or right) and the direction of the
saccade indicated by the verbal cue (left or right) were varied
randomly within a session.
The CS:SOA was fixed at 200 ms. This CS.'SOA was selected
because it permitted the TOJ stimuli to be displayed in close
temporal proximity to the onset of the saccade while, at the same
time, minimizing the number of rejected trials for saccadic laten-
cies below the CS:SOA. This was particularly relevant in the
single-task ocular sessions and in the dual-task fast-latency ses-
sions when the participants were required to execute saccades as
soon as possible after the verbal cue.
835
As shown in Table 2, Participant 1 had few rejected trials in the
single-task attentional/TOJ and ocular sessions and few rejected
trials in the dual-task fast- and normal-latency sessions. The per-
centage of rejected trials in the dual-task slow-latency sessions was
slightly greater primarily because of saccades with latencies above
the upper cutoff of 500 ms. This participant delayed saccades in
accordance with instructions and, thus, exceeded the upper cutoff
limit on a certain proportion of trials. Participant 2 had a moderate
and undifferentiated level of rejections in single- and dual-task
Results and Discussion
The results of Experiment 5, plotted separately for each
participant, are shown in Figures 7A and 7B.3 The effect of
attention, estimated by the point of greatest temporal uncer-
tainty, is plotted against saccadic latency. Note that saccadic
latency decreases-to the right on the a'-axis in the figures.
The filled symbols, plotted directly on the axes, show the
mean single-task levels of performance for the ocular task
and the attentional/TOJ task. The open symbols show the
mean dual-task levels of performance. Dual-task perfor-
mance is shown separately for conditions in which attention
and the saccade were directed to the same location (labeled
as attend, sacc same) and in.which attention was directed to
one location and the saccade was directed to the other
location (labeled as attend, sacc diff). Dual-task perfor-
mance is shown for the three saccadic latency sessions
(slow-, normal-, and fast-latency sessions).
The single-task levels may be regarded as being optimal
levels of performance because the participants were able to
devote all their attention to one task. For both individuals,
the optimal attentional effect on the TOJ task, as indexed by
the point of greatest temporal uncertainty, was about 40 ms
(see ;y-axis, Figures 7A and 7B), that is, the unattended
stimulus had to be displayed 40 ms before the attended
stimulus for the temporal order to be indiscriminable. The
optimal saccadic latency was about 300 ms for Participant 2
and about 345 ms for Participant 1 (see x axis, Figures 7A
and 7B).
The intersection of the two single-task levels of perfor-
mance (shown by the dotted lines) may be regarded as being
the independence point; if the saccadic and attentional/TOJ
tasks are independent, the participants should be able to
execute each task concurrently at the respective single-task
levels. Indeed, dual-task performance for the fast-latency
sessions fell near the intersection point for Participant 2 and
beyond the intersection point for Participant 1, showing that
the saccadic and attentional/TOJ tasks were independent.
Thus, the two participants were able to perform concur-
rently the attentional/TOJ and ocular tasks without a reduc-
tion in saccadic latency or in the size of the attentional
effect. In agreement with the earlier experiments, we con-
clude that the participants were able to maintain attention at
4
In the dual-task condition, normal-latency sessions were per-
formed first to establish a standard against which the participants
could gage their latencies in the fast- and slow-latency sessions.
5
To facilitate comparison, these figures are organized like Fig-
ure 11 of Kowler et al. (1995).
 836 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

same level of accuracy in the dual-task fast-latency sessions

Attenttonal Operating Analysis as in the single-task sessions. An explanation for the dis-
Attention: Arrow CUB Eye movement Verbal cue crepancy between the results of the present research and
single-task those of Kowler et al. may lie in differences in the type of
r T <& attention /TOJ • attentional operations tapped by the two perceptual tasks:
= S3 -to ;
• -TTljr ^^ TOJs were used in the present research, whereas letter
1 £30 I dual-task identification was used by Kowler et al. A more complete
slow normal last analysis of this discrepancy and a possible resolution is
B f 20 attend, sacc same A
attend, sacc diff o presented later in the General Discussion.
'5 o> Before moving on, however, we would like to address a
8. -2. 10
IS CS:SOA = 200 ms
possible alternative explanation concerning the results of
3 n
Experiment 5. The attentional operating analysis is an im-
450 400 350 300
Saccadlc Latency (ms) portant tool to show that there were no performance
tradeoffs between the attention/TOJ task and the ocular task
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

in the present research. However, even at the fastest sac-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cadic latencies, the interval between the offset of the second

Attentions Operating Analysis TOJ stimulus and the initiation of the saccade averaged
Attention: Arrow cue Eye movement: Verbal cue
about 40 ms and 100 ms for Participants 1 and 2. It could be
8 c* single-task
argued that these intervals may have been long enough for
attention /TOJ •
i S3 4° ocular • attention to be shifted from the marker on one side of
-"•~3ai"¥; fixation to the other. Specifically, in the attend, sacc diff
T^T I dual-task
f*30 condition, attention may have been maintained on the side
slow tot! TOJ & move-eyes
~5 f 20 normal . attend, sacc same A opposite the saccadic target until just after the presentation
attend, sacc dm o of the TOJ stimuli and, then, rapidly shifted to the saccadic
&™ S -rt
•=• 10
target. In this view, the TOJ task would not accurately
CSiSOA. 200ms
S n 1 1A i ,. i reflect the positioning of attention immediately prior to the
450 400 350 300 saccade. This possibility was assessed in a control experi-
Saccadic Latency (ms) ment in which the interval between the TOJ stimuli and the
initiation of the saccade was decreased by blocking the
Figure 7. Experiment 5: Attentional operating analysis for Par- direction of the saccade. On any given session, the partici-
ticipants 1(A) and 2(B) plotting the point of greatest temporal pants executed saccades in only one direction, after predi-
uncertainty against saccadic latency. Single-task levels (temporal recting their attention either in the same direction or in the
order judgment [TOJ] and ocular task, performed separately) are opposite direction to the intended saccade. Blocking the
shown with solid symbols and broken lines. Dual-task levels (TOI saccade direction is known to reduce saccadic latency
and ocular task, performed simultaneously) are shown with open (Kowler et al., 1995).6 As shown in Table 7, both partici-
symbols. "Attend, sacc same" indicates the condition in which the pants had substantially reduced saccadic latencies in the
saccade was executed toward the attended side. "Attend, sacc diff'
blocked saccade sessions, compared with the random sac-
indicates the condition in which the saccade was executed toward
cade sessions shown in Figures 7A and 7B. Of primary
the unattended side. Labels slow, normal, and fast refer to the three
interest is that in the attend, sacc diff condition the TOJ
speed instructions for saccades in the dual task sessions. CS =
cue-tc-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony. Error bars stimuli were now separated from the initiation of the sac-
show the standard error of mean. cade by approximately 3 ms and 25 ms for Participants 1
and 2, respectively. It is extremely unlikely that attention
could be shifted from one side of the display to the other in
this amount of time. Importantly, the attentional effect on
one location in the visual field while moving their eyes to the TOJ task in the attend, sacc diff condition was not
another location. reduced compared with the attend, sacc same condition, in
For the normal- and slow-latency sessions, saccadic la- spite of the shorter saccadic latencies. These findings agree
tency was appropriately delayed compared with the fast- with the main argument of the present report, that attention
latency sessions. Importantly, the size of the attentional can be maintained at one location and a saccade can be
effect for these sessions remained at around 40 ms. This executed to another location without a corresponding shift
reinforces the primary conclusion of independence, by in attention.
showing that there were no trade-offs in performance be-
tween the saccadic and attentional/TOJ tasks across the
entire range of saccadic latencies. 6
The blocked saccade condition and the random saccade con-
Our results differed from those of Kowler et al. (1995) in dition in Kowler et al. (1995) yielded similar patterns of results. In
showing that performance in the dual-task conditions could both cases, the participants showed performance decrements on
reach the independence point. Kowler et al.'s two partici- letter identification from single- to dual-task blocks. For the
pants were unable to reach the independence point, that is, present purposes, Kowler et al.'s findings validate the use of
they were unable to identify an alphabetic character at the blocking to achieve faster saccadic latencies.
 ATTENT1ONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
Table 7
Experiment 5: Blocked Saccade Condition
(CS:SOA " 200ms)
Interval (ms) for:
Attend, Attend,
saccade saccade
Participant and measure same different
Participant 1
TOJ effect 29.3 37.4
Saccadic latency 240.5 250.1
Interval between TOI stimuli and
saccade 1.2 2.7
Participant 2
TOJ effect 39.3 40.7
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Saccadic latency 272.5 275.4
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Interval between TOJ stimuli and
saccade 23.2 24.7
Note. The temporal interval between the offset of the second
temporal order judgment (TOJ) stimulus and the initiation of the
saccade is calculated separately for each participant and each
condition. This interval equals the saccadic latency, minus the
CS:SOA, minus the TOJ effect, minus the duration of the TOJ
stimulus. For example, for the Participant 1 attend, saccade dif-
ferent condition, this interval is 250.1 - 200 - 37.4 - 10 = 2.7
ms. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony (in
milliseconds).
Experiment 6A: Reinterpretation of Shepherd,
Findlay, and Hockey (1986)
Shepherd et al.'s (1986) research represents the best
known demonstration of rapid, presaccadic, endogenous
allocation of attention to the target location of a saccade. In
Experiment 6A and in the one that follows (Experiment 6B),
we replicated and extended Shepherd et al.'s seminal re-
search, offering a reinterpretation of their results in terms of
coupling between saccadic and manual responses.
Shepherd et al. (1986) measured attentional allocation
using simple manual RT to the onset of a single target (flash
of light). The target flash appeared either presaccadically
(before eye movements were initiated) at cue-target asyn-
chronies of 70 and 140 ms or postsaccadically (after the
saccade had been executed) at cue-target asynchronies of
300 and 550 ms. The results showed that manual RTs were
faster to the target flash if the target appeared on the same
side to which a saccade was about to be executed (sacc,
target same) than if it appeared on the opposite side (sacc,
target diff).7 Shepherd et al. argued that attention was en-
dogenously shifted to the saccadic target prior to the sac-
cade, thereby facilitating perceptual processing of the target
flash in the sacc, target same condition.
We suggest that the results of Shepherd et al. (1986) do
not reflect rapid shifts of endogenous attention to the sac-
cadic target, but they can be explained in terms of coupling
between saccadic and manual responses. Specifically, the
participants may have delayed their manual responses to the
target flash until a critical stage in the saccadic response had
been completed. Because saccadic latencies were slower in
the sacc, target diff than in the sacc, target same conditions
837
of Shepherd et al. (i.e., at the critical presaccadic intervals of
70 and 140 ms cue-target asynchrony), manual responses
may have been delayed correspondingly.
In Experiment 6A, we contrasted Shepherd et al.'s atten-
tional allocation hypothesis and our response coupling hy-
pothesis by (a) using a larger range of cue-target asynchro-
nies, including asynchronies in which the target appeared
before the cue; and (b) by comparing single- and dual-task
performance.8 If attentional allocation underlies the findings
of Shepherd et al., then cueing effects should occur only
when the cue precedes the target. Clearly, there should be
no cueing effects when the target appears before the cue
because perceptual processing of the target would be com-
pleted before the participants knew whether to execute
eye-movements left or right. Alternatively, if response cou-
pling is involved, then a difference in manual RTs could still
occur when the target appears before the cue. Furthermore,
by comparing single- and dual-task performance, it should
be possible to infer whether the manual response was being
systematically delayed in favor of the saccadic response. If
response coupling is involved, one would,expect manual
RTs to be systematically delayed in Hie dual-task sessions as
compared with the single-task •sessions. Shepherd et al.'s
attentional allocation hypothesis would predict no system-
atic delay.
Method
Observers
Four undergraduate university students participated in Experi-
ment 6A. None had participated in the previous experiments. All
individuals had normal or corrected to normal visual acuity and
were naive about the hypotheses under investigation.
Visual Display, Design, and Procedure
The display consisted of two markers and a fixation stimulus
like those shown in Figure 1. The markers were located 3 degrees
from fixation. The manual RT target consisted of a single 10-ms
flash of light displayed at 200 cd/m1 at the center of one of the
markers. This target was displayed 700 ms after the onset of each
trial, thus equalizing expectancy and warning effects across all
CS:SOA conditions of the experiment (Reuter-Lorenz, Hughes, &
Fendrich, 1991). The participants were required to execute a
simple manual response by pressing a button as quickly as possible
after detecting the onset of the target flash. Manual RTs were
recorded by computer and were accurate to less than 1 ms.
Eye movements were cued using auditory presentation of the
words left or right, as described in Experiment 1. The asynchrony
7
Shepherd et al. (1986) referred to this condition as the 80/20
condition because the manual-response target flash coincided with
the saccade location on 80% of the trials.
8
It should be noted that, in Shepherd et al. (1986), only positive
asynchronies were used (i.e., the target always appeared after the
cue) and single-task sessions were not included.
 838 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

between the verbal cue and the target flash was varied at 8 levels
(-280, -140, 70, 0, 70, 140, 280, and 560 ms). At negative
asynchronies, the target flash was presented before the verbal cue.
At positive asynchronies, the target flash was presented after the
verbal cue. For example, at an asynchrony of -140 ms, the target
flash was displayed 140 ms before the verbal cue to move the eyes.
Baseline saccadic latencies and manual RTs were measured in
single-task sessions during which the participants were instructed
to make only one response: saccades in response to the verbal cue
(single-task ocular) or manual button presses in response to the
target flash (single-task manual). Dual-task sessions provided a
replication of the testing conditions used by Shepherd et al. (1986).
In the dual-task sessions, the participants were instructed to per-
form each task as quickly as they could, with the shortest possible
latency. To be consistent with Shepherd et al., the participants
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
saccade was not detected, if the amplitude of the saccade was
below 1 degree, if the saccade was in the wrong direction, if
saccadic latency was below 90 ms or above 1,000 ms, or if the
saccadic latency was below the cue-target asynchrony for the trial.
This latter rejection criterion was applied at all asynchronies
except 560 ms. The upper cutoff for valid saccades was set at
1,000 ms to provide a wide temporal range within which response
coupling could be observed. In single-task manual sessions, the
individuals were required to fixate centrally throughout each trial,
and the rejection criteria were adjusted appropriately: A trial was
rejected if the eyes moved more than 0.5° from fixation.
The percentage of rejected trials was 19%, 12%, and 26% in the
single-task manual, single-task ocular, and dual-task sessions, re-
spectively (see Table 2). The distribution of rejected trials is shown
in Table 8. In the single-task manual sessions, most rejections

were not given explicit instructions about task priority in the
dual-task sessions. Each individual completed 2-3 practice ses-
sions and 10 experimental sessions of each type. Order of testing
was single-task ocular, single-task manual, and dual-task. There
were 64 trials per session, two trials at each combination of
cue-target asynchrony (8 levels), verbal cue (left/right), and side of
target flash (left/right).
In each session, catch trials (on which a target flash was not
presented) were randomly interspersed among the experimental
trials at a frequency of about 15%. The purpose of the catch trials
was to discourage anticipatory responding in the manual task.
Trials were rejected and repeated later in a session if a manual
response occurred on a catch trial. Trials were also rejected if the
manual RT was anticipatory (<100 ms) or delayed (>800 ms). In
addition, trials were rejected if there was a problem with the
saccade. The rejection criteria for saccades were as follows: If a
occurred because the eye moved away from fixation. The distri-
bution of rejections across CS:SOA was approximately even. In
the single-task ocular sessions, there was a tendency for rejections
to decrease with CS:SOA. This occurred primarily because sac-
cades were more likely to be in the wrong direction (i.e., opposite
to that specified by the verbal cue) at negative CS:SOAs when the
target flash preceded the verbal cue. Presumably, the participants
were incorrectly anticipating the direction specified by the verbal
cue. This explanation is consistent with the relatively larger per-
centage of anticipatory saccades at these CS:SOAs. In the dual-
task sessions, there was also a tendency for rejections to decrease
with CS:SOA. As in single-task ocular sessions, saccades were
more likely to be in the wrong direction and to be anticipatory at
negative CS:SOAs. Also, in the dual task sessions, a higher pro-
portion of trials was rejected at negative CS:SOAs because the
manual response was excessively delayed (>800 ms).

Table 8
Experiment 6A: Distribution (Percentage) of Rejected Trials

CS:SOA

Replication 1 -280 -140 -70 70 140 280 560

Single-task manual
Eye moved 8.1 11.4 10.1 13.7 11.7 13.2 10.3 12.2
Manual catch trial error 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.5
Manual RT below 100 ms 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0
Manual RT above 800 ms 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7
Total 9.1 12.4 10.9 15.0 12.4 13.5 12.5 14.4

Single-task ocular
Low amplitude of saccade 2.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.5
No saccade 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
Wrong direction of saccade 7.6 9.9 9.0 9.0 7.6 7.3 4.1 1.7
Ocular latency below 90 ms 4.7 2.0 2.0 4.1 3.8 2.3 1.5 2.3
Ocular latency above 1,000 ms 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.7
Ocular latency below CS:SOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Total 15.7 14.5 12.8 15.4 14.0 12.5 7.8 7.3

Dual task
Low amplitude of saccade 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
No saccade 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wrong direction of saccade 15.0 6.0 5.6 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.2
Ocular latency below 90 ms 6.4 0.5 1.4 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.6
Ocular latency above 1,000 ms 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.7
Ocular latency below CS'.SOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A
Manual catch trial error 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0
Manual RT below 100 ms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1
Manual RT above 800 ms 26.4 4.0 1.7 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total 50.4 13.1 10.3 6.6 4.5 5.6 4.3 5.2
Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony (in milliseconds); RT = reaction
time; N/A = not applicable.
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
Results and Discussion
The results are shown in Figure 8. The broken lines in the
figure show single-task levels of performance, and the solid
lines show dual-task levels. The results of Shepherd et al.
(1986) were replicated successfully; saccadic latencies and
manual RTs were shorter in the sacc, target same than in the
race, target diff conditions. A repeated-measures ANOVA
indicated that these differences were statistically reliable for
saccadic latency, F(\, 3) = 53.3, MSE - 4,514.64, p <
.005, and for manual reaction time, F(l, 3) = 31.5, MSE =
19,425, p < .02. For manual RTs, pairwise Newman-Keuls
comparisons of the means for the sacc, target same versus
sacc, target diff conditions indicated significant differences
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for all but the —280 ms condition. For saccadic latencies,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
pairwise comparisons were marginally significant, p < .09,
at —280, —140, and 70 ms cue-target asynchronies.
Experiment 6A used a larger range of cue-target asyn-
chronies than in the original research by Shepherd et al.
(1986), enabling us to compare the attentional allocation
and response coupling hypotheses. The differences in man-
ual RTs at negative asynchronies between sacc, target same
and sacc, target diff conditions supports the response cou-
pling hypothesis. At these asynchronies, the target occurred
before the verbal cue. Consequently, perceptual processing
of the target should have been completed before the verbal
Endogenous verbal cue
-280 -140 0 70140 280 560
B were coupled with and contingent upon the saccadic re-
(single-task data)
-280 -140 0 70140 280 560
(target first) (verbal cue first)
Asynchrony between verbal cue
and target stimulus (CS:SOA) (ms)
Figure 8. Experiment 6A: Saccadic latency (A) and manual
reaction time (RT) (B) plotted against the cue-to-stimulus (CS)
stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) for dual-task (solid lines) and
single-task (broken lines) conditions. No instructions about task
priority were given. "Sacc, target same" indicates the condition in
which the saccade was executed toward the location containing the
target stimulus. "Sacc, target diff' indicates the condition in which
the saccade was executed toward the location not containing the
target stimulus. Error bars show the standard error of mean.
839
cue could exert any influence via attentional allocation. The
effect on manual RTs, therefore, can be explained by as-
suming that the manual response was coupled and contin-
gent on the saccadic response. Because the saccadic re-
sponse was faster in the sacc, target same condition than in
the sacc, target diff condition, this effect was carried for-
ward into the manual response.
A comparison of latencies in the single- and dual-task
sessions provides additional evidence for the response cou-
pling hypothesis. One should recall that the participants in
this experiment were not given explicit instructions about
task priority in the dual-task sessions. However, it is appar-
ent that the saccadic task received priority, because saccadic
latencies in the dual-task sessions were similar to those in
the corresponding single-task sessions (as compared in the
broken and solid lines in Figure 8A). By contrast, manual
RTs were systematically delayed in the dual-task manual
sessions compared with the corresponding single-task ses-
sions (as compared in the broken and solid lines in Figure
8B). For example, at a CS:SOA of -140 ms, when the
manual-response target was presented 140 ms before the
verbal cue to move the eyes, the manual response was
delayed by more than 250 ms compared with the single-task
level. The progressive delay of the manual RTs from posi-
tive to negative CSrSOAs in the dual-task condition, sug-
gests that manual responses were being withheld until a
verbal cue was presented and a saccade could be planned
and/or executed.9
Experiment 6B: Response Coupling Versus
Attentional Allocation
According to the response coupling hypothesis, the ef-
fects on manual RTs observed in the dual-task sessions of
Experiment 6A occurred because the manual responses
sponses. In Experiment 6B, the participants were instructed
to give priority to the manual task. Under these conditions,
manual responses should no longer be contingent upon the
saccadic responses. Consequently, according to the re-
sponse coupling hypothesis, manual RTs in the sacc, target
same and sacc, target diff conditions should be equivalent.
However, according to Shepherd et al.'s (1986) attentional
allocation hypothesis, the advantage of the sacc, target
same over the sacc, target diff condition should persist; the
manual response should continue to benefit from the allo-
cation of attention to the location of the target flash prior to
the execution of the saccade.
9
Saccadic latencies were shorter in the dual- than in the single-
task sessions at negative CS:SOAs. This may reflect an attempt by
participants to minimize the delay resulting from response cou-
pling. That is, knowing that the manual response was on hold, the
participants expedited their saccadic response.
 840 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN

Method would be expected if the ocular task were coupled to and contin-
gent upon the manual task.
Observers
Results and Discussion
Three individuals, two undergraduate university students and a
research colleague, participated in the experiment. None had par- Results are shown in Figure 9. The broken lines in the
ticipated in the previous experiments. All individuals had normal
figure show single-task levels of performance, and the solid
or corrected to normal visual acuity and were naive about the
lines show dual-task levels. The unique aspect of this ex-
hypotheses under investigation.
periment was that, in the dual-task sessions, the participants
Visual Display, Design, and Procedure were instructed to give priority to the manual task over the
saccadic task. They were able to follow these instructions as
The design of this experiment was similar to that of Experiment indicated by the fact that manual RTs fell near the single-
6A, except that in the dual-task sessions, the participants were told
task levels at all cue-target asynchronies (as compared in the
to give priority to the manual task over the ocular task. To facilitate
solid and broken lines in Figure 9B). Saccadic latencies,
this, the asynchronies were adjusted so that, on balance, there were
more trials when the manual target flash appeared before the however, were systematically elevated (as compared in the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

solid and broken lines in Figure 9A), even when the verbal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

verbal cue. Asynchronies between verbal cue and target flash were
-560, -280, -140, -70, 0, 70, and 140 ms.
The percentage of rejected trials was 5%, 4%, and 10% in the
single-task manual, single-task ocular, and dual-task sessions, re-
spectively (see Table 2). The distribution of rejected trials is shown
in Table 9. In the single-task manual sessions, most rejections
occurred because the eye moved away from fixation. In the single-
task ocular sessions and in the dual-task session, the greatest
proportion of rejections may be attributed to saccades with low
amplitude and to saccades that were in the wrong direction. The
proportion of rejections resulting from delayed manual responses
was negligible in the dual-task sessions, as would be expected if
the manual task received priority over the saccadic task. At posi-
tive CSrSOAs, a higher proportion of trials was rejected because
the ocular response was excessively delayed (> 1,000 ms), as
cue to move the eyes was presented before the manual-
response target (i.e., at positive cue-target asynchronies).
For example, at an asynchrony of +140 ms, the verbal cue
to move the eyes occurred 140 ms before the manual-
response target. Yet, in this condition, the saccadic response
was delayed by more than 200 ms over the single-task level.
In accordance with the response-coupling hypothesis, this
occurred because the participants withheld their saccade
until a target flash was presented and the manual response
could be planned and/or executed. Importantly, there was no
evidence for a differential effect of attention: Manual reac-
tion times in the sacc, target same condition and in the sacc,
target diff condition were equivalent.

Table 9
Experiment 6B: Distribution (Percentage) of Rejected Trials

CS:SOA

Replication 2 -560 -280 - 140 -70 0 70 140

Single-task manual
Eye moved 15.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 14.8 13.0 9.3
Manual catch trial error 1.9 0.9 3.7 1.9 4.6 0.9 3.7
Manual RT below 100 ms 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Manual RT above 800 ms 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
Total 18.5 9.3 13.9 11.1 19.4 14.8 13.0

Single-task ocular
Low amplitude of saccade 11.3 3.8 6.2 8.8 6.2 13.7 7.5
No saccade 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wrong direction of saccade 5.0 10.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 3.8
Ocular latency below 90 ms 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5
Ocular latency above 1,000 ms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Ocular latency below CS:SOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 18.7 13.7 11.3 11.3 12.5 18.7 13.7

Dual task
Low amplitude of saccade 6.1 4.1 2.0 4.6 2.6 3.1 3.6
No saccade 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 3.1 1.0 1.5
Wrong direction of saccade 5.6 6.1 5.1 7.1 2.0 1.0 5.6
Ocular latency below 90 ms 3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ocular latency above 1,000 ms 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 6.1
Ocular latency below CS:SOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Manual catch trial error 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.6
Manual RT below 100 ms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Manual RT above 800 ms 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.6
Total 16.8 13.8 8.7 16.8 10.7 9.7 23.5
Note. CS = cue-to-stimulus; SOA = stimulus onset asynchrony (in milliseconds) ;RT = reaction
time.
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
Endogenous vwbal CUB
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
-56D -280 -140 0 70140
(target first) (verbal cue first)
Asynchrony between verbal cue
and target stimulus (CS:SOA) (ms)
Figure 9. Experiment 6B: Saccadic latency (A) and manual
reaction time (RT) (B) are plotted against the cue-to-stimulus (CS)
stimulus onset asynehrony (SOA) for dual-task (solid lines) and
single-task (broken lines) conditions. Participants were instructed
to give priority to the manual task. "Sacc, target same" indicates
the condition in which the saccade was executed toward the
location containing the target stimulus. "Sacc, target diff' indicates
the condition in which the saccade was executed toward the
location not containing the target stimulus. Error bars show the
standard error of mean.
In summary, the results of Experiments 6A and 6B sup-
port the response-coupling hypothesis. In particular, it was
shown that the advantage of manual RTs in the sacc, target
same condition compared with the sacc, target diff condi-
tion (see Figure 8) could be attributed to response coupling
between manual and ocular responses. The advantage was
observed only when the participants gave priority to the
ocular task over the manual task (Experiment 6A) and
disappeared when task priorities were reversed (Experiment
6B). We conclude that response coupling and not attentional
allocation underlies the findings of Shepherd et al. (1986).
General Discussion
The present research examined the relationship between
saccadic eye movements and attention. Attentional alloca-
tion was indexed using a TOJ technique (Maylor, 1985;
Stelmach & Herdman, 1991). Eye movements were moni-
tored using a video-based pupil monitoring system. Exper-
iment 1 showed that the eyes could be moved to a target
location before an endogenous shift of attention took place;
endogenous shifts of attention occurred slowly and postsac-
cadically. In Experiment 2, attention was cued exogenously.
Consistent with previous research (Nakayama & Mackeben,
1989; Posner, 1980; Remington, 1980), it was found that
841
exogenously cued attention can be moved rapidly to a target
location, prior to the initiation of a saccade. This shows that
the TOJ task used in the present research is sensitive to
rapid shifts in attention. In Experiments 3 and 4, converging
psychophysical methods showed that the participants were
able to maintain attention at a designated location while
executing a saccade to a different location. In Experiment 5,
an attentional operating analysis (Kowler et al., 1995) was
used to investigate possible trade-offs between attentional
allocation and saccadic latency. No trade-offs were found,
suggesting that eye movements can occur independently of
shifts in attention. In Experiments 6A and 6B, Shepherd et
al.'s (1986) evidence that attentional allocation occurs prior
to a saccade was reinterpreted in terms of response
coupling.
In summary, the results of the present research showed
that when an eye movement was cued endogenously, atten-
tion did not precede the eyes to the saccadic target. Further-
more, individuals were able to hold attention at one location
in the visual field while executing a saccade to a different
location, and they were able to do this without incurring a
penalty in saccadic latency. The results paint a picture of
two largely independent systems, one involved in maintain-
ing and shifting attention and another involved in preparing
and executing saccadic eye movements. The notion that
attention and eye movements are controlled by independent
systems has been raised previously in the literature. For
example, Reuter-Lorenz and Fendrich (1992) suggested that
programming a saccade and programming an attentional
movement occurred independently and in parallel. In related
research, Abrams and Dobkin (1994), using an object-
centered paradigm (Tipper, Driver, & Weaver, 1991), con-
cluded that eye movements and attention are controlled by
different systems and that the two systems are guided by
different representations of space.
It would be simple and convenient if the relationship
between attention and eye movements could be summarized
succinctly as two independent systems. However, recent
research by Kowler et al. (1995; see also Deubel & Schnei-
der, 1994; Hoffman & Subramaniam, 1995) argues for a
stronger relationship between attention and eye movements
than suggested here. In contrast with the present research,
Kowler et al. found that attention can move rapidly to a
saccadic target before the saccade is initiated and that at-
tention cannot be held at one location while the eyes are
moved to another location. Relatively rapid movements of
attention have also been reported by Saarinen and Julesz
(1991), Sagi and Julesz (1985), and Sperling and Reeves
(1980), among others.
In Kowler et al. (1995, Experiment 4), eight alphabetic
characters arranged in a circle around fixation were pre-
sented for 130 ms. In the fixed saccade condition, the
participants were required to execute a saccade to a fixed
position in the array (i.e., the 9 o'clock position). At the
same time, the participants were required to report the
identity of one letter at a predetermined position in the
circular array (i.e., the 12 o'clock position). This condition
was designed to be optimal for observing a dissociation
between attention and eye movements; both the saccadic
 842 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN
target and the location of the target letter were known in
advance and held constant for the session. Yet, even under
these optimal conditions, Kowler et al. found that the re-
quirement to execute a saccade reduced performance on the
letter identification task, implying that the participants were
not able to maintain attention at one location while execut-
ing a saccade to another location. Experiment 5 of the
present research was modelled after the random saccade
condition of Kowler et al. This experiment was similar to
Kowler et al.'s fixed saccade condition, except that the
saccadic target was selected randomly on each trial. In spite
of the added demands of the random saccade condition, we
found that subjects were able to maintain attention at one
location and execute a saccade to another location.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
To resolve die discrepancies between the results of the
present research and those of Kowler et al. (1995), we
propose that TOJ and letter identification tasks tap different
varieties of attention. As suggested by LaBerge (1995;
LaBerge & Brown, 1989), these varieties of attention may
differ in speed of allocation—reallocation and in the degree
to which they are integrated with the saccadic eye move-
ment system. In LaBerge's preparatory/selection (or gradi-
ent/filter) model, a distinction is made between attentional
preparation and attentional selection. During attentional
preparation, a gradient is created in the visual field. This
happens, for example, when a cue instructs an individual to
direct attention endogenously to a given location. Atten-
tional selection involves the opening of a processing chan-
nel and is used to filter out a target item from an array of
distractor items. For the present purpose, the critical as-
sumption is that the two attentional operations, preparation
and selection, have different time courses. Preparation may
take many hundreds of milliseconds to occur. By contrast,
selection can operate more quickly, in tens of milliseconds.
The present findings match die assumed attributes of
preparatory attention. It can take upwards of 300 ms to
establish an attentional effect (Figures 2 and 3), and atten-
tional effects do not dissipate quickly, having a longevity
greater than the time required to plan and execute a saccade
(Figures 5, 6, 7A, and 7B). By contrast, the results of
Kowler et al. (1995) match the assumed attributes of selec-
tive attention: Selective attention can acquire a stimulus at
one location and then open a channel at another location
(e.g., from a letter target to a saccadic target) in well under
300 ms. It is noteworthy that in the cases in which endog-
enous attention was inferred to move rapidly (Deubel &
Schneider, 1994; Kowler et al., 1995; Saarinen & Julesz,
1991; Sagi & Julesz, 1985; Sperling & Reeves, 1980), the
participants were required to identify or discriminate letters
or numbers. In LaBerge's framework, this would reflect
selective attention. By contrast, in the cases in which en-
dogenous attention was inferred to move slowly, the partic-
ipants were required to perform detection tasks (Remington,
1980) to make judgments about the perceived direction of
motion (Shimojo, Miyauchi, & Hikosaka, 1993) or to report
the perceived temporal order of visual stimuli (present re-
search). In LaBerge's framework, this would reflect prepa-
ratory attention. In general, the observed relationship be-
tween eye movements and attention would depend on the
type of task used to assess attentional allocation.
Implications for Models of Ocular-Attentional
Integration
Extant models of ocular-attentional integration are based
on the assumption that eye movements are tightly coupled
with movements of attention. For example, in the oculomo-
tor readiness model (Rizzolatti, Riggio, Dascolo, & Umilta,
1987; Umilta, Riggio, Dascola, & Rizzolatti, 1991), shifts
of attention and movements of the eyes are governed by the
same neural mechanisms involved in saccadic program-
ming. A covert shift of attention occurs when an eye move-
ment is prepared, but the eye movement is not executed.
Thus, preparing an eye movement is equivalent to executing
a shift of attention. The oculomotor readiness model is
consistent with a body of neurophysiological evidence, in-
dicating that some neurons respond when animals are re-
quired to move their eyes to a target in the visual field or
when they are required to move attention (Colby, 1991).
The strong assumption of equivalence has been questioned,
however, in that eye movements and attentional movements
have substantially different properties (Abrams & Dobkin,
1994; Crawford & Muller, 1992; Klein, Kingstone, & Pon-
tefract, 1992; Reuter-Lorenz & Fendrich, 1992). The results
of the present research also present a challenge for the
oculomotor readiness model. Observers were able to main-
tain attention on one side of fixation while moving then-
eyes to a target on the opposite side. This should not be
possible if control of eye movements and control of atten-
tion are tightly coupled.
A tight coupling between movements of the eyes and
movements of attention is also assumed in Henderson's
(1992; see also O'Regan, 1990) sequential attention model.
According to Henderson, attention precedes the eyes to the
next fixation location once a critical level of processing has
been completed at the currently fixated location. Further-
more, eye movements are directed toward attended loca-
tions and cannot be directed toward unattended locations.
The sequential attention model can account for the asym-
metric attention span observed in reading and in the sequen-
tial viewing of pictures (Henderson, 1992; O'Regan, 1990;
Pollatsek, Rayner, & Balota, 1986; Rayner & Pollatsek,
1987). For example, research suggests that when individuals
view pictures or words in a predetermined sequential order,
information is extracted from the image currently fixated
and from the image about to be fixated (Henderson, Pollat-
sek, & Rayner, 1989). The results of the present research
suggest, however, that attention and eye movements are less
tightly coupled than described in the sequential attention
model.
We note that the sequential attention model was intended
to describe ocular-attentional integration in situations re-
quiring a sequence of fixations. In situations such as these,
the planning and execution of saccades must be sensitive to
the global (sequential) demands of the task as well as to the
characteristics of the image. For example, in reading, the
 ATTENTIONAL AND OCULAR MOVEMENTS
length of the next word to be fixated needs to be determined
so that an accurate saceade to the approximate center of the
word can be achieved. In agreement with LaBerge's (1995)
preparatory/selection framework, one possibility is that pre-
paratory attention is involved in setting up and maintaining
the schema for these global patterns of eye movements.
Atteritional selection, however, may not be needed to plan
and execute these saccades, as suggested by McConkie and
Zola (1987). McConkie and Zola monitored readers' eye
position and switched the identity of a word midway
through a fixation. In cases in which readers reported seeing
only one word (65% of the time), they were equally likely
to report the word presented during the first half of fixation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
as they were to report the word presented during the second
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
half. This rinding was taken to imply that attentional selec-
tion could occur at various points during a fixation, not
exclusively during the first half of fixation. Had attentional
selection always occurred prior to the saceade, then observ-
ers should have reported the first word more frequently than
the second word.
In sum, the present results suggest that attention and eye
movements are coupled more loosely than is postulated by
either the oculomotor readiness model or the sequential
attention model. Both of these approaches to ocular-
attentional integration may need to be modified to acknowl-
edge the distinction between preparatory and selective at-
tention as proposed by LaBerge (1995) and to consider the
demands of different perceptual tasks.
It is interesting to note that the pivotal role of attention in
guiding eye movements is rooted in the view that there is an
attention gate that mediates between perception and action.
In this view, the ocular system gains access to information
about the location of salient features in the visual world via
attention (Koch & Ullman, 1985; O'Regan, 1990). It is
possible, however, that the ocular system may be able to
glean information directly from preattentive sources, by-
passing attention altogether. For example, the notion that
salient features in a preattentive map may provide direct
targeting information for shifts of the eyes is consistent with
findings reported by Braim and Sagi (1990). In Braun and
Sagi, the individuals were required to perform two tasks
concurrently: a preattentive search task and a task requiring
focal attention. It was found that performance on each task
was the same in the dual-task condition as when the two
tasks were performed separately. They concluded that pre-
attentive and attentive information can access higher pro-
cessing levels independently, such that eye movements can
be guided directly by information from preattentive sources.
Conclusions
The contribution of the present research is in showing that
movements of the eyes need not be tightly constrained by
attention. It was demonstrated, across a series of experi-
ments, that eye movements can be executed independently
of shifts of attention to the saccadic target, challenging the
prevailing view that saccadic eye movements must be tar-
geted by attention. We suggest that LaBerge's (1995) pre-
843
paratory/selection model of attention provides a useful
framework for understanding the complex relationship be-
tween attention and saccadic eye movements. Future re-
search examining the integration of eye movements and
attention will need to consider fully the nature of prepara-
tory and selective attention, the unique characteristics of
different perceptual tasks, and the role of preattentive visual
processes in guiding saccades.
References
Abrams, R. A., & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return:
Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-
mance, 20, 467-477.
Braun, J., & Sagi, D. (1990). Vision outside the focus of attention.
Perception and Psychophysics, 48, 45-58.
Colby, C. L. (1991). The neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of
attention. Journal of Child Neurology (Supplement 1991), 6,
90-118.
Crawford, T. J., & Miiller, H. J. (1992). Spatial and temporal
effects of spatial attention on human saccadic eye movements.
Vision Research, 32, 293-304.
Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1994). The coupling of visual
attention, object recognition and saceade target selection. (In-
ternal Rep. No. 8). Munich, Germany: Max Planck Institute for
Psychological Research.
Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the
visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-
ception and Performance, 11, 583-597.
Finley, G. (1985). A high-speed point plotter for vision research.
Vision Research, 25, 1993-1997.
Henderson, I. M. (1992). Visual attention and eye movement con-
trol during reading and picture viewing. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye
movements and visual cognition (pp. 260-283). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Henderson, J. M., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1989). Covert
visual attention and extrafoveal information use during object
identification. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 196-208.
Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual
attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception and Psycho-
physics, 57, 787-795.
Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the
mind's eye's movement. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.),
Attention and performance IX (pp. 187-203). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kalesnykas, R. P., & Halett, P. E. (1987). On plotting amplitude-
transition functions for voluntary eye saccades. Vision Research,
27, 675-679.
Klein, R. (1980). Does oculomotor readiness mediate cognitive
control of visual attention? In R. S. Nickerson (Ed), Attention
and performance VIII (pp. 259-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klein, R., Kingstone, A., & Pontefract, A. (1992). Orienting of
visual attention. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and visual
cognition (pp. 46-65). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Koch, C., & Ullman, S. (1985). Shifts in selective visual attention:
Toward the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology, 4,
219-227.
Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B., & Blaser, B. (1995). The
role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Re-
search, 35, 1897-1916.
LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing: The brain's art of
mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 844 STELMACH, CAMPSALL, AND HERDMAN
LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations
in shape identification. Psychological Review, 96, 101-124.
Maylor, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of
orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner and 0. S. M. Marin
(Eds.), Attention and Performance XI (pp. 189-204). Hfflsdale,
NJ: Ertbaum.
McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1987). Visual attention during eye
fixations while reading. In M. Coltheatt (Ed.), Attention and
performance XII (pp. 385-401). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nakayama, K.. & Mackeben, M. (1989). Sustained and transient
components of focal visual attention. Vision Research, 29,
1631-1647.
O'Regan, J. K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In E. Kowler
(Ed.), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive
processes (pp. 395-453). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Pollatsek, A., Rayner, K., & Balota, D. A. (1986). Inferences about
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
eye movement control from the perceptual span in reading.
Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 123-140.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.
Posner, M. L, Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, J. B. (1980). Atten-
tion and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: General, 109, 160-174.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1987). Eye movements in reading: A
tutorial review. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading.
Perceptual and language processes (pp. 327-362). New York:
Academic Press.
Remington, R. W. (1980). Attention and saccadic eye movements.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 6, 726-744.
Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., & Fendrich, R. (1992). Oculomotor readi-
ness and covert orienting: Differences between central and pe-
ripheral precues. Perception and Psychophysics, 52, 336-344.
Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Hughes, H. C., & Fendrich, R. (1991). The
reduction of saccadic latency by prior offset of the fixation
point: An analysis of the gap effect. Perception and Psycho-
physics, 49, 167-175.
Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascolo, I., & Umilta, C. (1987). Re-
orienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians:
Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsy-
chologia, 25, 31-40.
Saarinen, J., & Julesz, B. (1991). The speed of attentional shifts in
the visual field. Proceeding of the National Academy.of Sciences
USA, 88, 1812-1814.
Sagi, D., & Julesz, B. (1985). Fast noninertial shifts of attention.
Spatial Vision, 1, 141-149.
Shepherd, M., Findlay, J. M., & Hockey, R. J. (1986). The rela-
tionship between eye movements and spatial attention. Quar-
terly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 475-491.
Shepherd, M., & Miiller, H. J. (1989). Movement versus focusing
of visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 46, 146-154.
Shimojo, S., Miyauchi, S., & Hikosaka, O. (1993). Supplement to
investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34, 1290.
Sperling, G., & Reeves, A. (1980). Measuring the reaction time of
a shift of visual attention. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and
performance VIII (pp. 347-360). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stelmach, L. B., & Herdman, C. M. (1991). Directed attention and
perception of temporal order. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 539-550.
Tarn, W. J., & Stelmach, L. B. (1993). Viewing behaviour: Ocular
and attentional disengagement. Perception and Psychophysics,
54, 211-222.
Taylor, M. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficiency esti-
mates on probability functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 41, 782-787.
Tipper, S., Driver, J., & Weaver, B. (1991). Object-centered inhi-
bition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology, 43a, 289-298.
Umilta, C., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Rizzolatti, G. (1991). Dif-
ferential effects of central and peripheral cues on the reorienting
of spatial attention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
3, 247-267.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective
attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
16, 121-134.
Received January 31, 1994
Revision received November 28, 1995
Accepted February 16, 1996 •