Paradigms using double stimuli have revealed an effect termed remote distracter effect. When two stimuli are presented in parallel, one of which is the target and the other a distracter, a significant increase in saccadic reaction time is usually found (Lévy Schoen, 1969; Findlay, 1983), independent from prior knowledge of the target location (Walker et. al., 1995). The effect - has been ascribed to the fact that the onset of a remote distracter alters the dominance of a collicular "fixate-system" (Findlay & Walker, in press). They suppose that the balance between the two systems "fixate-move" is temporarily shifted towards fixation. This explanation relies entirely on an optomotor effect. We challenge this position, stating that it is, at least for a significant portion, caused by attentional mechanisms. We studied fixation durations during picture viewing with a gaze contingent distracter presented at 3° to the right of the gaze position. The distracter was presented at a fixed latency from beginning of the fixation of 100 ms. Probability of occurrence depended on the likelihood of a fixation duration of at least 100 ms. The results indicated a significant increase in fixation duration of those fixations during which a distracter was presented. Moreover, the distribution of fixation durations showed a considerable "lack" of fixations with a duration of distracter latency plus around 96 ms on the one hand, and a "surplus" of fixation durations yet another 120 ms. The study was replicated with distracter latencies of 100 and 300 ms, with essentially the same results. Within this second experiment, half of the visual distracters were replaced by an auditory signal of 1000 Hz. Results from this condition showed, that a similar though somewhat smaller effect was yielded by the auditory distracter: a prolongation of fixation durations, less than expected fixations with a duration of distracter latency + some 80 ms and a recovery around 120 ms later. We consider these results as an indication, that the remote distracter effect cannot solely be explained through an optomotor reflex mechanism, and suggest that the model presented by Findlay and Walker should take attentional mechanisms into account.

Findlay, J.M., 1983, Visual information for saccadic eye movements. In: A. Hein & M. Jeannerod (Eds.). Spatially Oriented Behaviour. Heidelberg, Springer.Verlag.
Findlay, J.M., Walker, R. (in press): A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Submitted for open peer commentary to Behavioral & Brain Sciences, http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.findlay.html.
Lévy-Schoen, A., 1969, Détermination et latence de la réponse oculomotrice à deux stimulus. L'Année Psychologique, 69: 373-392.
Walker, R., Kentridge, R.W, Findlay, J.M., 1995, Independent contributions of the orienting of attention, fixation offset and bilateral stimulation on human saccadic latencies. Experimental Brain Research, 103: 294-310.