Saccade accuracy as an indicator of the competition between functional asymmetries in vision

  • Jérôme TaguEmail author
  • Karine Doré-Mazars
  • Dorine Vergilino-Perez
Research Article


Hemispheric specialization refers to the fact that cerebral hemispheres are not equivalent and that cognitive processes are lateralized in the brain. Although the potential links between handedness and the left hemisphere specialization for language have been widely studied, little attention has been paid to other motor preferences, such as eye dominance, that also are lateralized in the brain. For example, saccadic accuracy is higher in the hemifield contralateral to the dominant eye compared to the ipsilateral hemifield. Saccade accuracy is, however, also known to be sensitive to other functional asymmetries, such as the lateralization of visuo-spatial attention in the right hemisphere of the brain. Using a global effect paradigm in three different saccade latency ranges, we here propose to use saccade accuracy as an indicator of visual functional asymmetries. We show that for the shortest latencies, saccade accuracy is higher in the left than in the right visual hemifield, which could be due to the lateralization of visuo-spatial attention in the right hemisphere. For the longest latencies, however, saccade accuracy is higher toward the right than the left hemifield, probably due to the lateralization of local and global processing in the left and right hemispheres, respectively. These results could have a major impact on studies designed to measure the degree of lateralization of individuals. We here discuss both the theoretical and clinical contributions of these results.


Saccadic eye movements Saccadic accuracy Global effect Distractor Hemispheric specialization Asymmetries 



The authors warmly thank Dr. Agnès Charvillat for her language help. They also gratefully acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

221_2019_5717_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (270 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PDF 270 kb)


  1. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68(3):255–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker W (1989) The neurobiology of saccadic eye movements. Metrics. In: Wurtz RH, Goldberg ME (eds) Reviews of oculomotor research, 3. Elsevier, Michigan, pp 13–66Google Scholar
  4. Bompas A, Sterling T, Rafal RD, Sumner P (2008) Naso-temporal asymmetry for signals invisible to the retinotectal pathway. J Neurophysiol 100(1):412–421. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers D, Heilman KM (1980) Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task. Neuropsychologia 18(4–5):491–498. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brederoo SG, Nieuwenstein MR, Lorist MM, Cornelissen FW (2017) Hemispheric specialization for global and local processing: A direct comparison of linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli. Brain Cogn 119:10–16. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carling K (2000) Resistant outlier rules and the non-Gaussian case. Comput Stat Data Anal 33(3):249–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casteau S, Vitu F (2012) On the effect of remote and proximal distractors on saccadic behavior: a challenge to neural-field models. J Vision 12(12):14–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaumillon R, Blouin J, Guillaume A (2014) Eye dominance influences triggering action: the Poffenberger paradigm revisited. Cortex 58:86–98. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaumillon R, Alahyane N, Senot P, Vergne J, Lemoine-Lardennois C, Blouin J, Vergilino-Perez D (2017) Asymmetry in visual information processing depends on the strength of eye dominance. Neuropsychologia 96:129–136. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Collewijn H, Erkelens CJ, Steinman RM (1988) Binocular co-ordination of human horizontal saccadic eye movements. J Physiol 404(1):157–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corballis PM, Funnell MG, Gazzaniga MS (1999) A dissociation between spatial and identity matching in callosotomy patients. NeuroReport 10(10):2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbetta M, Shulman GL (2002) Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(3):215–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coren S, Hoenig P (1972) Effect of non-target stimuli upon length of voluntary saccades. Percept Mot Skills 34(2):499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corneil BD, Munoz DP (2014) Overt responses during covert orienting. Neuron 82(6):1230–1243. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Deubel H, Wolf W, Hauske G (1984) The evaluation of the oculomotor error signal. In: Gale AG, Johnson F (eds) Advances in psychology: theoretical and applied aspects of eye movement research, vol 22. Elsevier, Nottingham, pp 55–62Google Scholar
  17. Deubel H, Findlay JM, Jacobs AM, Brogan D (1988) Saccadic eye movements to targets defined by structure differences. In: Luer G, Lass U, Shallo-Hoffman J (eds) Eye movement research: physiological and psychological aspects. Hogrefe, Toronto, pp 107–145Google Scholar
  18. Durand AC, Gould GM (1910) A method of determining ocular dominance. J Am Med Assoc 55(5):369–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erdogan AR, Özdikici M, Aydin MD, Aktas Ö, Dane S (2002) Right and left visual cortex areas in healthy subjects with right-and left-eye dominance. Int J Neurosci 112(5):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Findlay JM (1982) Global visual processing for saccadic eye movements. Vision Res 22(8):1033–1045. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Findlay JM, Brogan D, Wenban-Smith MG (1993) The spatial signal for saccadic eye movements emphasizes visual boundaries. Percept Psychophys 53(6):633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fink GR, Halligan PW, Marshall JC, Frith CD, Frackowiak RSJ, Dolan RJ (1996) Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees? Nature 382(6592):626–628. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartigan JA, Hartigan PM (1985) The dip test of unimodality. Ann Stat 13(1):70–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heinze HJ, Hinrichs H, Scholz M, Burchert W, Mangun GR (1998) Neural Mechanisms of Global and Local Processing: A Combined PET and ERP Study. J Cognit Neurosci 10(4):485–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeffreys H (1961) Theory of probability, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Jewell G, McCourt ME (2000) Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 38(1):93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jóhannesson ÓI, Tagu J, Kristjánsson Á (2018) Asymmetries of the visual system and their influence on visual performance and oculomotor dynamics. Eur J Neurosci 48(11):3426–3445. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000) Principles of neural science, 4th edn. Appleton & Lange, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerkhoff G (2001) Spatial hemineglect in humans. Prog Neurobiol 63(1):1–27. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee MD, Wagenmakers EJ (2014) Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Leigh RJ, Zee DS (2015) The neurology of eye movements. Oxford University Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin M (1979) Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing. Neuropsychologia 17(1):33–40. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinez A, Moses P, Frank L, Buxton R, Wong E, Stiles J (1997) Hemispneric asymmetries in global and local processing: evidence from fMRI. NeuroReport 8(7):1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mesulam MM (1981) A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect. Ann Neurol 10(4):309–325. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mesulam MM (1999) Spatial attention and neglect: parietal, frontal and cingulate contributions to the mental representation and attentional targeting of salient extrapersonal events. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354(1387):1325–1346. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Morey RD, Rouder JN (2018) Package “BayesFactor”. R package version 0.9.12-4.2. Available at
  37. Nebes RD (1973) Perception of spatial relationships by the right and left hemispheres in commissurotomized man. Neuropsychologia 11(3):285–289. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicholls ME, Roberts GR (2002) Can Free-Viewing Perceptual Asymmetries be Explained by Scanning, Pre-Motor or Attentional Biases? Cortex 38(2):113–136. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholls MER, Beckman E, Churches O (2016) An investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of viewing distance and stimulus length on attentional asymmetries during line bisection. Atten Percept Psychophys. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saslow MG (1967) Effects of components of displacement-step stimuli upon latency for saccadic eye movement. JOSA 57(8):1024–1029. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seyal M, Sato S, White BG, Porter RJ (1981) Visual evoked potentials and eye dominance. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 52(5):424–428. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Shima H, Hasegawa M, Tachibana O, Nomura M, Yamashita J, Ozaki Y, Kado H (2010) Ocular dominance affects magnitude of dipole moment: an MEG study. NeuroReport 21(12):817–821. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sparks DL (2002) The brainstem control of saccadic eye movements. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(12):952–964. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Szczepanski SM, Kastner S (2013) Shifting attentional priorities: control of spatial attention through hemispheric competition. J Neurosci 33(12):5411–5421. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Tagu J, Doré-Mazars K, Lemoine-Lardennois C, Vergilino-Perez D (2016) How eye dominance strength modulates the influence of a distractor on saccade accuracy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57(2):534–543. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Tagu J, Doré-Mazars K, Vergne J, Lemoine-Lardennois C, Vergilino-Perez D (2018a) Quantifying eye dominance strength—new insights into the neurophysiological bases of saccadic asymmetries. Neuropsychologia 117:530–540. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tagu J, Doré-Mazars K, Vergne J, Lemoine-Lardennois C, Vergilino-Perez D (2018b) Recentering bias for temporal saccades only: evidence from binocular recordings of eye movements. J Vision 18(1):1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thiebaut de Schotten M, Dell’Acqua F, Forkel SJ, Simmons A, Vergani F, Murphy DGM, Catani M (2011) A lateralized brain network for visuospatial attention. Nat Neurosci 14(10):1245–1246. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomas NA, Nicholls MER (2018) Asymmetries in distractibility: left distractors improve reaction time performance. Scientific Rep 8(1):5157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toba M-N, Cavanagh P, Bartolomeo P (2011) Attention biases the perceived midpoint of horizontal lines. Neuropsychologia 49(2):238–246. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Vallar G (1993) The anatomical basis of spatial hemineglect in humans. In: Marshall J, Robertson I (eds) Unilateral neglect: clinical and experimental studies. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 27–60Google Scholar
  53. Vallar G (1998) Spatial hemineglect in humans. Trends Cognit Sci 2(3):87–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van der Stigchel S, de Vries JP (2015) There is no attentional global effect: attentional shifts are independent of the saccade endpoint. J Vision 15:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Stigchel S, Nijboer TC (2011) The global effect: what determines where the eyes land? J Eye Movement Res 4(2):1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Kleeck MH (1989) Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli by normal subjects: New data and a meta-analysis of previous studies. Neuropsychologia 27(9):1165–1178. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vergilino-Perez D, Fayel A, Lemoine C, Senot P, Vergne J, Doré-Mazars K (2012) Are there any left-right asymmetries in saccade parameters? examination of latency, gain, and peak velocity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(7):3340. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Vitu F (2008) About the global effect and the critical role of retinal eccentricity: Implications for eye movements in reading. J Eye Movement Res 2(3):1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. White BJ, Munoz DP (2011) The superior colliculus. In: Liversedge SP, Gilchrist ID, Everling S (eds) The Oxford handbook of eye movements. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 195–213Google Scholar
  60. Wollenberg L, Deubel H, Szinte M (2018) Visual attention is not deployed at the endpoint of averaging saccades. Plos Biol 16(6):1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zago L, Petit L, Mellet E, Jobard G, Crivello F, Joliot M, Tzourio-Mazoyer N (2016) The association between hemispheric specialization for language production and for spatial attention depends on left-hand preference strength. Neuropsychologia 93:394–406. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Zago L, Petit L, Jobard G, Hay J, Mazoyer B, Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Mellet E (2017) Pseudoneglect in line bisection judgement is associated with a modulation of right hemispheric spatial attention dominance in right-handers. Neuropsychologia 94:75–83. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Vision Action CognitionUniversité de ParisBoulogne-BillancourtFrance
  2. 2.Icelandic Vision Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, School of Health SciencesUniversity of IcelandReykjavikIceland
  3. 3.Institut Universitaire de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations