We caught up with Helen Klonaris ahead of her time in Charleston as the third British Council International Writer in Residence at Small Wonder Festival.
Photo of Charleston by Penelope Fewster. Photo by Georgina Godwin.
How did you come to hear about this opportunity and what inspired you to apply?
Two friends, one a filmmaker and the other a visual artist, both wrote to me on the same day to say "This! Apply!" I hadn't heard of the festival, but when I read about it I felt an immediate resonance with its mission, its location, the spirit of the place, and I knew I wanted to be there.
Can you give us a brief outline of where you feel you are in your writing career right now, and how the residency fits in with it?
Absolutely. In June of this year my first book – If I Had the Wings – was published by Peepal Tree Press. It took a long time to complete this project, perhaps because I was dealing with the first stories that rise up out of the unconscious wanting to be told, and because really I was learning how to tell stories. I felt very self-conscious, both in terms of my craft and what it is I was trying to say. But now that they are out in the world, I feel a real freedom, and an urgency to take bigger risks in the writing. I'm working on a new story – I don't know yet if it wants to be a series of short, interlinked stories, or a novel, but the characters are here talking to me. I'm also working on completing a collection of essays on race, specifically on whiteness and the (necessity of) imagination. Lots of ideas swirling at the moment. The residency comes at a perfect time; it feels to me like a rare opportunity to hear what others are saying, to share my work, and to expand my awareness of what is possible in the short story form.
Your debut short story collection If I had the Wings is out now. Can you give us a sense of the kind of themes and considerations those stories reflect?
Sure. As a child I regularly heard a song that was very popular in the Bahamas, "Wings of a Dove." As Marion Bethel, a sister Bahamian writer pointed out to me, the song takes its lyrics from the Judeo Christian Psalms, and is very much a call to life, to resiliency in the face of captivity. Many of my stories are about characters trying to find freedom – from homophobic friends or family members, from suffocating family structures, from sexual violence, from religious fundamentalism. They are also trying to become conscious in ways that the society or culture balks at. In many of the stories I was asking myself what would it take for these characters to become conscious? To act in new ways, against the grain of what the culture requires. Sometimes the change is very subtle, but it is a change. Movement toward a new perspective. This is what interests me – what are the small personal turning points that add up to social transformation? My stories are places of inquiry for me.
You describe yourself as 'an islander'. Can you talk a little about what a sense of place means for you and your writing? Do you think literature can have a sense of nationality, as well as place?
I can hear the rhythm of the ocean even when I am thousands of miles away from it. When I am writing, I lean into that rhythm, often without realizing it. My sentences feel like waves. I have the habit of beginning sentences with 'and', and punctuating them with commas and semicolons because thoughts are connected to one another like waves, like people brushing up against each other in small places, again and again. Place is vibration and colour and light and song – the ways people talk to each other, how they move when they talk. It is breath, and the ways our bodies experience heat and cold, how they move when we are hot, when we are angry, or laughing. There are ways I move when I am at home in the Bahamas that I do not express anywhere else. This is in the writing. A sense of place. And then there is the history of that place, and of its peoples; there are the stories we tell about that history and ourselves, about how we got here. And what we are doing here together now. Our mythos. So, yes, I think literature can have a sense of nationality. Even as national identities are constantly shifting.
What would be the best thing to come out of the residency?
New relationships. Meeting other writers. Hearing the ways they speak about their writing, how they engage with the world through their writing. Community – a widening of my own sense of community of both writers and readers – lovers of literature. Experiencing all this in a place that still resonates with the lives of artists and writers who gave themselves radical permission to create. Alchemy. A gathering of people and ideas in an extraordinary place that just might give rise to new work.
Small Wonder Festival is Charleston's annual celebration of short stories in all their different shapes and guises. It takes place from 27th September to 1st October.
Find out more about Helen's work and our previous international writers in residence at Small Wonder.
Listen to our podcast with Helen.
Read Helen's short story Cowboy.


Weber County is fortunate to have some of the finest scenery, attractions and sporting venues found anywhere in Utah. One thing that these places all have in common is that roads are generally used to get there. We at the Weber County Road Department take pride in seeing that the public can get around from place to place in our county whatever the season or reason. This photograph shows 2 county machines opening up the road to the Scout Camp at Causey after a particularly big snowfall in 1996. But the Road Department is not just about snow removal. We are genuinely interested in how the roads under our care look and feel to those that use our scenic byways once passing through, or commuting every day.
We are small in number, only 14 drivers and operators to handle the maintenance on 205 miles of county roads. But thanks to some modern equipment, we do pack a pretty good punch when it comes to getting the job done. The help of a great office manager and 4 top drawer mechanics is also a big plus in keeping us out on the road. It is our hope that when you see us out there, you will slow down and wave as you go by. Please drive safely! We will do our part if you will do yours. Driving is more about attitude than skill. Enjoy what Weber County has to offer and we will see you on the road.
Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.


Once it was Toyota's large flagship cruiser; the 2019 Avalon now presents itself as more of a sleek and agile combat ship. Introduced in 1994, it was for many years a large car, sometimes described as Toyota's Buick. It had the distinction of being the only modern sedan that could seat three passengers comfortably in the back seat, with a flat floor and proper cushions.
In 2013, it was downsized to its current state as a midsize car. It continues in that configuration for 2019, now barely larger than its popular – and lower-priced – sibling, the Toyota Camry.
A perennial best-seller, the Camry nests neatly in the midsize class with 114 cubic feet of interior volume, divided at 99 for passengers and 15 in the trunk. The 2019 Avalon has but 5 cubic feet more: 103 for passengers and 16 in the trunk. It also is 4 inches longer than the Camry.
Distinctions come in appointments and equipment. The Camry can be outfitted like a near-luxury premium sedan; while the Avalon has higher, Lexus-like aspirations, it has joined the crowd with a center-rear seat that is little more than an uncomfortable perch. Outboard back seats, however, offer plenty of head and knee room.
For 2019, its fifth-generation iteration, the Avalon, in the words of group vice-president Ed Laukes, "was re-created from the ground up." It is longer, lower, and wider than its predecessor and sports new exterior and interior styling. It sports LED lighting all around, an adaptive suspension system, distinctively different grilles for sport and luxury-oriented models, and seven trim levels.
They are the XLE (the focus here), and the Limited, whose grilles are filled with horizontal bars; the sport-oriented XSE and Touring, with gleaming, piano-black mesh grilles; and three hybrid models in XLE, XSE, and Limited trim. Prices range from $35,500 to $38,000. In a move that should win more economy-oriented customers, hybrid models cost just $1,000 more than their gasoline counterparts in all trim levels. EPA city/highway/combined XLE hybrid fuel economy is rated at 43/44/44 miles to the gallon. XSE and Limited get 43/43/43. Moreover, the hybrid now has the same trunk size as the non-hybrids.
Though all versions were available, the lowest-price XLE gasoline model was chosen for this review because it comes with all basic Avalon goodness. The test car does not offer a navigation system, so drivers must use their smart phone's service. But, four powered USB ports will allow most passengers to constantly navigate as they wish.
The XLE also lacks frosting that comes on other trim levels. Among the missing are leather upholstery, genuine wood interior trim, paddle shifters, acoustic windshield and side glass up front, head-up display, rear cross-traffic braking, and a birds-eye-view rear camera.
But the XLE does have Toyota's manufactured Softex upholstery; Entune infotainment system with Apple Car Play, Bluetooth and SXM satellite radio; three-mode drive system (Eco, Normal, Sport); and Toyota's Safety Sense system, which includes pre-collision braking with pedestrian detection, adaptable radar cruise control, lane departure mitigation, and blind-spot detection.
All non-hybrid versions share a new 301-horsepower, 3.5-liter V-6 engine that delivers 267 lb.-ft. of torque. It is connected to the front wheels through an eight-speed automatic transmission. The combination provides a smooth, quiet surge of power that never feels out of breath.
On the road, the XLE test car cruised serenely with no intrusion of mechanical or wind noise, and only minimal sounds from the tires on rough pavement. The front seats were comfortable on the artificial Softex surface, with good seatback bolstering for cornering. A touch of a button selects Eco, Normal, and Sport settings, which adjust shift points, ride comfort, steering, and suspension settings.
The tested XLE came with a suggested delivered price of $36,395. It had two options: a $1,000 motorized sunroof and a $680 upgraded JBL audio system for a total sticker price of $38,075, which is only about $3,500 more than the average transaction price of a new car in this era.
For that, you can buy premium surroundings, modern styling, strong performance, and comfort in a flagship car that competes handily against the likes of the Buick LaCrosse and Nissan Maxima — and, if you're on a tight budget, maybe even a Lexus ES.


text:
<?php

namespace Cartalyst\Sentinel\Tests;

use Cartalyst\Sentinel\Permissions\PermissibleTrait;
use Cartalyst\Sentinel\Permissions\PermissibleInterface;
use Mockery as m;
use PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase;

class PermissibleTraitTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
    /**
     * Close mockery.
     *
     * @return void
     */
    public function tearDown()
    {
        m::close();
    }

    public function testPermissionsClassSetterAndGetter()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissible::setPermissionsClass('Cartalyst\Sentinel\Permissions\StandardPermissions');

        $this->assertEquals('Cartalyst\Sentinel\Permissions\StandardPermissions', $permissible::getPermissionsClass());
    }

    public function testGetPermissionsInstance()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $this->assertInstanceOf('Cartalyst\Sentinel\Permissions\StandardPermissions', $permissible->getPermissionsInstance());
    }

    public function testAddPermission()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissible->addPermission('test');
        $permissible->addPermission('test1');

        $permissions = [
            'test'  => true,
            'test1' => true,
        ];

        $this->assertEquals($permissions, $permissible->getPermissions());
    }

    public function testUpdatePermission()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissible->addPermission('test');
        $permissible->addPermission('test1');
        $permissible->updatePermission('test1', false);

        $permissions = [
            'test'  => true,
            'test1' => false,
        ];

        $this->assertEquals($permissions, $permissible->getPermissions());
    }

    public function testUpdateOrCreatePermission()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissible->addPermission('test1');
        $permissible->updatePermission('test2', false);

        $permissions = [
            'test1' => true,
        ];

        $this->assertEquals($permissions, $permissible->getPermissions());

        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissible->addPermission('test1');
        $permissible->updatePermission('test2', false, true);

        $permissions = [
            'test1' => true,
            'test2' => false,
        ];

        $this->assertEquals($permissions, $permissible->getPermissions());
    }

    public function testRemovePermission()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissible->addPermission('test');
        $permissible->addPermission('test1');
        $permissible->removePermission('test1');

        $permissions = [
            'test'  => true,
        ];

        $this->assertEquals($permissions, $permissible->getPermissions());
    }

    public function testPermissionsSetterAndGetter()
    {
        $permissible = new PermissibleStub;

        $permissions = [
            'test' => true
        ];

        $permissible->setPermissions($permissions);

        $this->assertEquals($permissions, $permissible->getPermissions());
    }
}

class PermissibleStub implements PermissibleInterface
{

    use PermissibleTrait;

    protected $permissions = [];

    protected function createPermissions()
    {
        return new static::$permissionsClass($this->permissions);
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The posters of wanted men for war crimes are stark remindersof Rwanda's history which greets you when you enter the border. It is however amazing to see how things have progressed as we only meet the most friendly of people in Rwanda. The country is small, but, area wise has relativelythe biggest population in Africa. It's also by no means flat, which means that where there are no mountains or steep hills there are people.
As I was cycling toward Kigali, I was being challenged by other cyclists carrying milk, goats, wood, coal, bananas etc. These guys take it quite seriously. Apparently cycle races are organised by the local villages and are very popular since the President of the country actively encourages the sport. Rwanda has now got three very competitive teams and has won quite a few races in Africa.
We were lucky enough to have been invited by Helen to stay with her and her flat mates in Kigali where she works. So, more time to bulk up, rest the legs and spend some good times in Kigali. On our penultimate afternoon, she had organised the slaughter of a goat for us and had a farewell braai for us Rwandan style. Thanks again Helen and her flat mates for an awesome three days of super hospitality.
As usual, great pics and news! Keep pedaling – you are doing a fabulous and amazing thing!
It looks incredible, what a place of contrasts and beauty, getting closer to the finish line!


New look site – hope you like it.
Things looked pretty good for Wednesday – there was a bit of rain forecast but the wind would be light, turning into a northerly. The moon would be about 65% full and low tide would 0.5m at 9.43am. These are ideal conditions to fish at Bribie Island. Arriving before dawn, I could fish the second half of the run out tide.
I arrived on the island side of the bridge at about 5.30 am. The water was running out pretty fast. I put on my waders and clambered down the rock wall to the south of the bridge. The bridge lights often bring the smaller fish or prawns into this area but there was no evidence of their presence. The water was clear, but there was a fair amount of weed floating around. I tried dark and light, big and small soft plastics but did not get a bite. Just after first light at about 6.00 am I decided to move south.
I drove down to the car park in front of the Seaside Museum. Conditions were perfect – I could see where the fresh water drain was pouring over the ledge into the channel and I positioned myself just south of this point.
I was fishing with my light spin rod and running 8lb fluorocarbon leader down to a 1/8th ounce, 1/0 hook, jighead. I started with a GULP 4" Minnow in the Smelt colour. I cast over the ledge, let it sink and bounced it back along the bottom, parallel with the shore. After about three casts, there was a solid bite, then line started peeling. It was slow at first but then it took off, as it realised it was hooked. It took about 10 metres, paused and then took another 10. It was a heavy fish. It turned and swam back towards the ledge. I tried to apply some pressure and lift it over but it put its head down and swam under an overhang. I tightened the drag a little and then slowly dropped the rod tip. As the line slackened, the fish swam out. I put the pressure on again but it went straight back under. I could feel the line rubbing on something and then pffffft – it was gone. When I wound in the line, the jighead and plastic were gone.
I swapped through a few soft plastics and hard bodies as the tide ran out. A small school of Tailor passed through and I lost a couple tails from my lures. I dropped down to a GULP 3" Minnow in the Pearl Watermelon colour on the same size jighead. On the first cast this soft plastic was hit as it sank. There was a quick initial run, towards me. I tightened the drag and started wading backwards. I did not want the fish to swim back over the ledge. I pulled a little too hard and caught site of a good sized Bream swimming away.
I carried on peppering the area with casts. I made sure I gave the soft plastic plenty of time to sink to the bottom. On a couple of casts I felt a faint bite, as I lifted the lure off the bottom. At about 7.35 am I cast out and paused. When I lifted the rod I felt some resistance. Suddenly line was peeling again. This time it was heading out into the channel. I moved closer to the ledge and gradually recovered some line. It was another slow powerful fish. It gradually tired and as I pulled it over the ledge, I could see it was a Jewfish. It made few more runs but I soon had it safely on the sand. It was about 55cm long. Unfortunately it had completely swallowed the jighead, so I left it in, cut the leader and released it, after a few pictures. I could not find anymore, so I moved on.
I waded to the south, casting along the edge of the drop off. Things were uneventful for about 45 minutes. I was now standing in front of the tidal lagoon at Buckley's Hole. Suddenly, something grabbed the soft plastic as it dropped into the water. It took off and then let go. I continued retrieving the lure, quickly and just before it reached me, the fish grabbed it again. It jumped around and made plenty of lunges and short runs. It was a small Tailor. As it came over the ledge, it had two other fish following it. It was only about 30cm long but nicely hooked. I picked it up and took a few pictures before releasing it.
Things went quiet so I slowly waded back along the shore line to where I had started. It was now almost low tide and the water was getting dirtier and weedier. I was still using the GULP 3" Minnow soft plastic. At about 9.00 am I was ready to give up. As I speeded up my retrieve to pull the lure clear of the ledge, a fish grabbed it and pulled away. It went straight back over the ledge and headed for the bottom. It took a bit of line but soon calmed down and after a minute or two, I had a nice 36cm Bream to finish the session.
As I drove home the heavens opened again.
This entry was posted in Bribie Island, Fishing Reports and tagged 55cm Jewfish, bream on soft plastics, Bribie Island fishing reports, catch tailor on soft plastics, estuary fishing in Queensland, Gulp Minnow, land based fishing blog Australia, landanglers fishing blog. Bookmark the permalink.
I have a question for you. A mate of mine and I were at Pine River: Deep water bend on Sunday 21st fishing the run out tide around 09:00. After a few flatties and 2 nice Tailor we lost 2 sets of tackle to really big hits. The hits were big enough that the rods jumped and the light drag barely clicked.
My question is: What do you reckon could be nasty enough there to take off a 5′ pilly attached to a 3 x #3 swivel linked hook set on 12lb Trilene with one bite?
The remaining line looked like something sawed through it.
When there is bait involved and it is quick like that, I would say Shark.
However, big Pike have sharp teeth and will easily bite through 20lb leader.
Tailor can also swallow the lot as it hits the water – you never know unless you land them.


text:
Volume 9, Issue 12
Research Article | November 2009
Oculomotor responses and visuospatial perceptual judgments compete for common limited resources
Marc S. Tibber; Simon Grant; Michael J. Morgan
Marc S. Tibber
Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, London, UKhttp://www.tibber.50g.com/mtibber@yahoo.com
Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, London, UKmtibber@yahoo.com
Michael J. Morgan
Journal of Vision November 2009, Vol.9, 21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/9.12.21
User Alerts
You are adding an alert for:
You will receive an email whenever this article is corrected, updated, or cited in the literature. You can manage this and all other alerts in My Account
The alert will be sent to:
This feature is available to authenticated users only.
Sign In or Create an Account ×
Marc S. Tibber, Simon Grant, Michael J. Morgan; Oculomotor responses and visuospatial perceptual judgments compete for common limited resources. Journal of Vision 2009;9(12):21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/9.12.21.
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
While there is evidence for multiple spatial and attentional maps in the brain it is not clear to what extent visuoperceptual and oculomotor tasks rely on common neural representations and attentional mechanisms. Using a dual-task interference paradigm we tested the hypothesis that eye movements and perceptual judgments made to simultaneously presented visuospatial information compete for shared limited resources. Observers undertook judgments of stimulus collinearity (perceptual extrapolation) using a pointer and Gabor patch and/or performed saccades to a peripheral dot target while their eye movements were recorded. In addition, observers performed a non-spatial control task (contrast discrimination), matched for task difficulty and stimulus structure, which on the basis of previous studies was expected to represent a lesser load on putative shared resources. Greater mutual interference was indeed found between the saccade and extrapolation task pair than between the saccade and contrast discrimination task pair. These data are consistent with visuoperceptual and oculomotor responses competing for common limited resources as well as spatial tasks incurring a relatively high attentional cost.
There is considerable debate as to whether visual attention is a single unified resource, or whether in fact, judgments of different stimulus attributes (e.g., position, color and luminance) tap into distinct attentional resources. Thus, while several studies have shown comparable levels of interference between similar and dissimilar task pairings (Lee, Itti, Koch, & Braun, 1999; Lee, Koch, & Braun, 1999; Pastukhov, Fischer, & Braun, 2009), Morrone, Denti, and Spinelli (2002, 2004) report evidence to suggest that color and luminance judgments recruit distinct attentional resources. Parallel debates exist over the extent to which common attentional resources, attentional selection mechanisms (Deubel, Schneider, & Paprotta, 1998; Schneider & Deubel, 2002), and neural representations (Altmann, Grodd, Kourtzi, Bulthoff, & Karnath, 2005; Burr, Morrone, & Ross, 2001; Cavina-Pratesi, Goodale, & Culham, 2007; Collins, Dore-Mazars, & Lappe, 2007; Eckstein, Beutter, Pham, Shimozaki, & Stone, 2007; Eggert, Sailer, Ditterich, & Straube, 2002; Faillenot, Sunaert, Van Hecke, & Orban, 2001; Rice, Valyear, Goodale, Milner, & Culham, 2007; Tibber, Anderson, Melmoth, Rees, & Morgan, 2009; Valyear, Culham, Sharif, Westwood, & Goodale, 2006) subserve perceptual and oculomotor responses (i.e., "vision/selection-for-perception" versus "vision/selection-for-action"). For example, several studies have demonstrated that when eye movements are centrally cued to a peripheral spatial location sensitivity to a perceptual probe is relatively enhanced at the saccadic landing site prior to movement onset (Kowler, Anderson, Dosher, & Blaser, 1995), arguing for a tight and obligatory coupling between eye movements and visuoperceptual attention.
While this phenomenon has been described for discriminations involving judgments of stimulus orientation (Castet, Jeanjean, Montagnini, Laugier, & Masson, 2006; Lee & Lee, 2008; Montagnini & Castet, 2007), the discrimination of a letter from its mirror-symmetric rotated counterpart (Baldauf & Deubel, 2008; Deubel, 2008; Deubel & Schneider, 1996; Schneider & Deubel, 2002) as well as alphanumeric character identification (Hoffman & Subramaniam, 1995; Kowler et al., 1995; Van der Stigchel & Theeuwes, 2005), a similar target-site benefit was not found for the detection of a briefly presented luminance increment (Remington, 1980), a fact that led the authors to conclude that the oculomotor system is relatively independent of visuoperceptual attention. However, it has since been shown that luminance sensitivity and contrast thresholds are relatively unaffected by the near absence of attention (Bonnel, Stein, & Bertucci, 1992; Lee, Koch, & Braun, 1997), and further, that positional/spatial judgments are particularly demanding of attentional resources (Pastukhov et al., 2009). This raises the possibility that Remington (1980) failed to find a link between visuoperceptual attention and saccadic eye movements as a result of using a non-spatial secondary task that was not attentionally demanding.
To test the theory that visuoperceptual judgments and oculomotor responses compete for common limited resources, and secondly, that spatial and non-spatial perceptual judgments make different claims on this resource, we employed a dual-task interference paradigm (Kowler et al., 1995; Pashler, 1994b; Pashler, Carrier, & Hoffman, 1993), in which observers performed eye movements and perceptual judgments in response to simultaneously presented visual information (Duncan, 1980). Two main perceptual tasks were undertaken: a perceptual extrapolation, which engages spatial processing mechanisms, and a non-spatial contrast discrimination, which does not require explicit encoding of stimulus position (see Figure 1A). If perceptual judgments and oculomotor responses compete for common attentional resources (Deubel et al., 1998; Schneider & Deubel, 2002) there should be a high degree of inter-task interference when observers attempt to concurrently undertake a perceptual extrapolation and saccadic eye movement. In addition, if spatial and non-spatial tasks make different claims on these resources, on the basis of previous studies we would expect interference between the non-spatial perceptual and eye movement tasks to be considerably reduced (Bonnel et al., 1992; Lee et al., 1997; Remington, 1980).
View OriginalDownload Slide
(A) Trial sequence for Experiment 1. Observers performed perceptual extrapolation and contrast discrimination judgments on simultaneously presented visuospatial information. (B) Normalized sensitivities [expressed as a proportion of baseline (single-task) performance] for dual-task conditions. Extrapolation (white) and contrast discrimination (gray) sensitivities are shown for judgments made concurrently with the same second task (two extrapolations or two contrast discriminations), or simultaneously with a different second task (an extrapolation and a contrast discrimination), performed on distinct patches at different spatial locations. The white circle represents dual-task extrapolation performance when the second task is a contrast judgment made on the same patch (double report condition). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM).
In order to test for interference effects between eye movements and perceptual judgments it was first necessary to determine whether the two basic perceptual tasks were capacity limited. Consequently, we examined observers' accuracy at performing perceptual extrapolations and contrast discriminations independently (single-task conditions: extrapolation, contrast discrimination) as well as concurrently with a second identical task (dual same task conditions: extrapolation/extrapolation, contrast/contrast) and concurrently with a different task (dual different task conditions: extrapolation/contrast) performed on two patches at different spatial locations. As an additional control condition observers performed a perceptual extrapolation and contrast discrimination on a single target patch (double response condition).
Four observers took part in Experiment 1 including one of the authors, two highly experienced observers (naive to the purpose of the experiment), and a naive observer with no previous experience of psychological studies. In all experiments informed written consent was obtained in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committee of City University's Optometry Department, reporting to the Senate Ethical Committee.
Stimuli were generated using MATLAB (The MathWorks, Natick, MA) with the Cambridge Research Systems toolbox (CRS) and were presented on a luminance calibrated Sony Trinitron monitor in conjunction with the Cambridge VSG graphics card. Images were presented at a spatial and temporal resolution of 800 × 600 pixels and 100 Hz, respectively, and viewed under ambient light conditions at a distance of 50 cm.
The perceptual targets and fixation patch were Gabor patches with identical spatial dimensions—random phase, σ = 0.8 degrees of visual angle (DVA) with a spatial frequency of 3 cycles per degree (cpd)—and were presented against a background gray display of 21.8 cd/m 2 ( Figure 1A). The contrast of the fixation patch was set at 50% while the contrasts of the target patches were manipulated according to task requirements. The pointers subtended 3.3 DVA at the correct viewing distance and had proximal tips located at the centroid of the fixation patch. The two pointers were always oriented at +45° or −45° to the horizontal. However, in order to minimize the likelihood that observers used an internal standard to perform the task random angular jitter (±0–5°) was independently added to the basic orientation of both pointers on each trial. In addition, the entire stimulus (fixation patch, pointers, and targets) was randomly shifted in the vertical plane between −0.5 and +0.5 DVA. The centroids of both targets (Gabor patches) were presented iso-eccentrically from fixation and lay on the circumference of a theoretical circle with a radius of 13.7 DVA whose centroid coincided with that of the fixation patch. In order to remove extraneous luminance/contrast cues during contrast discrimination tasks the luminance of the pointers and contrast of the irrelevant Gabor patch were randomly jittered (±0–6%) in the appropriate task conditions.
Two basic perceptual tasks were undertaken: a perceptual extrapolation/judgment of collinearity, in which observers judged a Gabor patch as being offset clockwise (CW) or anti-clockwise (ACW) relative to an axis defined by a pointer (with one tip rooted at fixation), and a contrast discrimination, in which observers judged whether a target patch was of higher or lower contrast than the patch presented at fixation (see Figure 1A). Trials began with the appearance of a Gabor patch at fixation, which remained onscreen throughout the trial. After 700 ms the entire stimulus ensemble was presented for 300 ms; this consisted of two Gabor patches and two pointers. [Note: both patches and pointers were always present, irrespective of whether the condition required judgments to be made on a single patch (single-task conditions) or on two patches (dual-task conditions). Consequently, a constant stimulus structure was maintained across all conditions.] The observer was then presented with a blank screen and an unlimited interval in which to make a single response (single-task conditions) or two responses (dual-task conditions).
In the single-task extrapolation condition judgments were made on a patch presented in the upper right quadrant (see Figure 1A). Conversely, in the single-task contrast condition, judgments were made on a target presented in the lower right quadrant. Dual-task performances were then related to these baseline measures of sensitivity. For example, in the dual different extrapolation condition, extrapolation acuity was measured for a target in the upper quadrant while observers simultaneously performed a contrast discrimination on a target presented in the lower right quadrant (see Table 1 for more details). As an additional control (double report) condition observers made extrapolation and contrast discrimination judgments on a single patch presented in the upper hemifield.
Perceptual dual-task conditions.
Upper target
Lower target
Dual same
Dual different*
Contrast discrimination
*These two conditions are in fact identical.
All stimulus levels (target offset relative to the point of collinearity and contrast difference between target and fixation patches) were controlled independently by a 2-down-1-up adaptive staircase. This converged on points of the underlying psychometric function for which CW/ACW responses were given 71% of the time. Hence, both the bias and threshold were actively tracked. Independently running increment and decrement staircases were interleaved (75 trials per staircase) so that a total of 150 trials were completed per block. Trials were blocked according to condition type (extrapolation: single, dual same, dual different and double report; contrast: single, dual same, dual different) and were presented in a pseudo-random order. (Note however that extrapolation and contrast dual different conditions are identical. See Table 1.) To minimize the likelihood of observers prioritizing one of the tasks, all multiple task conditions were performed twice, with the report orders reversed. In addition, participants were instructed to allocate equal attention to the two tasks and maintain fixation throughout. All blocks were repeated a minimum of 3 times by each observer.
As observers' responses showed large biases that varied seemingly idiosyncratically between experimental sessions (potentially confounding measures of observer sensitivity) data from each block were independently fit with 2-parameter Cumulative Gaussian psychometric functions using a method of maximum likelihood estimation (Wichmann & Hill, 2001a, 2001b). The point of subjective equality (relative to the orientation of the pointer) and slope of the underlying cumulative Gaussian distribution were taken as measures of bias and sensitivity, respectively. These were then averaged across blocks for each condition and each observer.
In Figure 1B group mean extrapolation and contrast discrimination sensitivities (dual-task sensitivity divided by baseline single-task sensitivity) are shown for different dual-task combinations performed on distinct target patches: same (two extrapolations or contrast discriminations) and different (an extrapolation and a contrast discrimination). In addition, the white circle represents dual-task extrapolation performance when the second task is a contrast judgment made on the same patch (double report condition). As can be seen, when the two judgments were made on a single-patch at a single spatial location, extrapolation performance was indistinguishable from baseline ( t (3) = 0.29, P = 0.79: single-sample t-test corrected for multiple comparisons). This is consistent with previous reports showing minimal/negligible interference when multiple judgments are made in response to a single spatial location or visual object (Duncan, 1980, 1984; Pashler, 1994a). However, as soon as spatial attention was divided across different locations and multiple judgments were made on distinct patches, performance fell below baseline. The magnitude of this effect was not equal across conditions. Thus, only the extrapolation-same and contrast-different condition performances were significantly different from baseline (t(3) = 4.5, P = 0.05 and t(3) = 4.8, P = 0.04, respectively; all other ts < 2.8, Ps > 0.16; single-sample t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons).
This pattern was confirmed by a repeated measures ANOVA with 2 factors, each at two levels (task type: extrapolation or contrast discrimination; task combination: same or different). Thus, there was no main effect of task type ( F (1,3) = 0.99, P = 0.39) or task combination ( F (1,3) = 0.03, P = 0.87). However, there was a highly significant interaction between the two ( F (1,3) = 70.2, P = 0.004), reflecting the fact that performance on both tasks was significantly impaired when an extrapolation judgment was undertaken concurrently (extrapolation same and contrast different conditions).
The results unambiguously demonstrate that both perceptual judgments (extrapolations and contrast discriminations) were susceptible to dual-task interference when performed in conjunction with a spatial extrapolation judgment. This finding adds credence to the theory that spatial tasks are particularly demanding on attentional resources (Pastukhov et al., 2009) and, further, supports the notion of a single integrated attentional resource (Lee, Itti et al., 1999; Lee, Koch et al., 1999; Pastukhov et al., 2009).
Having shown that both perceptual tasks are susceptible to dual-task interference when performed concurrently with a perceptual extrapolation, we went on to determine whether perceptual extrapolations would similarly impair oculomotor responses made to simultaneously presented visuospatial stimuli. Given our original hypotheses, we predicted that mutual interference would be greater between concurrently performed perceptual extrapolations and target-oriented saccades than it would be between contrast discrimination judgments and eye movements.
Five observers took part in Experiment 2, including two of the authors, two highly experienced observers (naive to the purpose of the experiment), and one naive observer with no previous experience of psychological studies.
Stimuli were presented on a calibrated Protouch 17-inch TFT flat-screen display (928 × 799 pixels; 60 Hz) and eye movements were recorded using an ISCAN RK-464 eye tracker (60 Hz) with observers supported by a stabilizing chin rest. Stimulus dimensions were scaled to match Experiment 1. The only difference was that in Experiment 2 the upper patch was a solid black dot (radius of 0.4 DVA) instead of a Gaussian blob, and the upper pointer was not present ( Figure 2). However, the position of the saccadic target was determined precisely the same way as the upper target in Experiment 1: it was presented at −45 degrees relative to fixation ±0–5° angular jitter. In addition, the luminance of the saccadic target and lower pointer were also jittered (±0–6%) to remove any possible cues to the contrast discrimination task.
Trial sequence for Experiment 2. Observers had to perform perceptual extrapolation and contrast discrimination judgments concurrently with a target-directed saccade using simultaneously presented visuospatial information.
Observers completed 3 single-task conditions: a perceptual extrapolation, a contrast discrimination, and a saccade to a dot target. In addition, two dual-task conditions were included: saccade plus extrapolation, and saccade plus contrast discrimination, giving a total of five conditions. These were presented in blocks of 100 trials each. For all observers each condition/block was repeated 3 times.
Similar to Experiment 1 the structure of the stimulus was consistent across conditions. Thus, following a 700-ms fixation period, a single pointer and Gabor patch (perceptual target) were presented in the lower right quadrant for 300 ms, along with a single black dot (saccadic target), presented simultaneously in the upper right quadrant ( Figure 2). All perceptual judgments were thus undertaken on the lower (perceptual) target, while saccades were directed toward a target in the upper right quadrant. The single perceptual task conditions were otherwise identical to Experiment 1: observers had to determine whether the Gabor patch was offset CW or ACW relative to the pointer axis (extrapolation), or else indicate whether the target was of a higher or lower contrast than the patch presented at fixation (contrast discrimination). In these conditions, observers were instructed to maintain fixation throughout; the saccadic target was irrelevant to the task but was maintained onscreen nonetheless. In the saccade only condition, which provided a measure of baseline oculomotor performance, observers were instructed to maintain fixation until stimulus onset, at which point they were to saccade to the upper (dot) target. Observers then maintained their gaze at this location until a short auditory beep indicated that they could move their eyes back toward the center of the screen in anticipation of the next trial ( Figure 2).
In the dual-task conditions observers made a saccade to the target following stimulus onset and then had an unlimited response time—following the beep—to make a judgment about the perceptual target's position or relative contrast. To minimize participants' head/body movements following calibration of the eye tracker responses were indicated by a movement of the right index finger or thumb and recorded on the computer by the experimenter. In all conditions involving eye movements observers were instructed to saccade to the saccade target "as soon as the target appears" and given repeated reminders of this instruction every 50 trials. Hence, priority should have been given to eye movement performance with emphasis on minimizing movement onset time.
Two out of the 5 observers (HW and AT; the least practiced on eye movement/extrapolation tasks) exhibited a consistent drop in basic movement onset times across each of the 3 experimental sessions and a lack of inconsistent pattern of interference effects. To verify this pattern in the data quantitatively, for each individual we derived a practice effect index, which was calculated by taking the gradient of a line fit to a plot of movement onset time against practice session. A subsequent independent samples t-test using these indices confirmed that observers HW and AT exhibited a significantly greater practice effect than did the other observers ( t (3) = 3.32, P < 0.05). Therefore, eye movement and psychophysical data for these two observers were only included from the last of three experimental sessions.
Basic eye movement data were analyzed using custom-written Matlab scripts with saccades defined as any displacements of gaze direction (initially computed independently for the horizontal and vertical axes) that exceeded a velocity threshold of 20 degrees per second, an amplitude threshold of one degree, and with the additional criterion that it must be followed by a minimum fixation period of 50 ms. Data were temporally smoothed prior to analysis and individual trials corrupted by blinks or featuring multiple saccades were discarded. Saccade endpoints are defined in non-standard polar coordinate notation such that positive values represent a CW deviation from the zero azimuth. The radial/eccentricity coordinate ( r) is expressed in degrees of visual angle (DVA) relative to fixation; the angular coordinate ( θ) is measured in degrees (°). The constant error (an observer's bias) and variable error (a measure of sensitivity) were defined as the mean and standard deviation of saccade endpoints in both the eccentricity and angular domains.
In Figure 3, group data are presented in the form of attention operating characteristic (AOC) plots (Sperling & Melchner, 1978), which show how perceptual task and eye movement sensitivity are affected under dual-task conditions (Kowler et al., 1995). Although data are normally presented in this format when observer instructions are systematically varied to manipulate the proportion of attention dedicated to either task, even under single instruction conditions AOC plots provide a concise way of presenting a large amount of data. In addition, raw individual observer data are provided in a supplementary figure (Figure S1) so that inter-individual variation and absolute parameter levels can be noted.
Attention operating characteristic (AOC) plots showing interference effects for saccade and extrapolation (Sacc + Extrap) and saccade and contrast discrimination (Sacc + Con) task combinations. All performance levels have been normalized relative to baseline (single-task) performance. Perceptual task performance (sensitivity) is plotted along the x-axis with various measures of saccadic performance plotted along the y-axis: (A) movement onset time (Onset), (B) maximum movement velocity (Vmax), (C) landing site variable error (Errorvr) in the eccentricity domain, and (D) landing site variable error in the angular domain (Errorvθ). The cross denotes the point of independence and represents theoretical dual-task performance under conditions of zero interference. Outer data points represent single-task performance (by definition set to 1); middle points represent dual-task performance. Smaller circles and triangles represent individual data for the Sacc + Extrap and Sacc + Con conditions, respectively. Error bars (group data) represent the standard error of the mean (SEM); where not visible they are smaller than the data point.
For all observers and all tasks performance was normalized relative to the individual's baseline performance, so that inter-observer differences in baseline performance were removed. Perceptual task performance (sensitivity) is plotted along the x-axis with various measures of saccadic performance plotted along the y-axis. These include: movement onset time ( Figure 3A—lower values representing longer onset times), maximum movement velocity ( Figure 3B—lower values representing slower velocities), and landing site variable error (accuracy) in the eccentricity ( Figure 3C) and angular ( Figure 3D) domains (lower values representing a greater spread of landing sites). In addition, landing site constant error (bias) was also calculated; however, this parameter is not presented in AOC format as biases are signed and may be strategic (i.e., functionally adapted; see supplementary Figure S1). While baseline (single-task) performance is represented by the outer data points the central data point represents dual-task performance. The cross denotes the point of independence and represents theoretical dual-task performance under conditions of zero interference. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean ( SEM); where not visible they are smaller than the data points.
As can be seen from Figure 3, the middle (dual-task) data points are consistently shifted downward and toward the left in both the extrapolation and contrast discrimination conditions, reflecting negative interference effects. To see if these interference effects were significant a series of one-sampled t-tests was performed to determine whether eye movement performance levels were significantly different from 1 (baseline performance). For the extrapolation and saccade dual-task condition highly significant interference effects ( Ps < 0.01) were found for movement onset times ( t (4) = 6.31, P = 0.003) and constant errors in the angular domain ( t (4) = 5.04, P = 0.007) but only approached significance ( Ps < 0.1) for variable and constant errors in the eccentricity domains ( t (4) = 2.29, P = 0.084; t (4) = 2.42, P = 0.072) as well as maximum movement velocity times ( t (4) = 2.15, P = 0.098) once corrections for multiple comparisons were made (Bonferroni correction). However, there was no detectable interference effect with respect to variable errors in the angular domain ( t (4) = 1.81, P = 0.14). In the contrast discrimination dual-task conditions none of the interference effects reached or even approached statistical significance (all Ps > 0.1).
Although all central data points were shifted downward and to the left of the point of independence there was clearly a trend for this shift to be greater in the extrapolation condition. To verify this quantitatively eye movement performance levels were compared for the extrapolation and contrast discrimination dual-task conditions using a series of one-tailed paired-samples t-tests. These show that movement onset was delayed to a greater extent by the simultaneous performance of a perceptual extrapolation than it was by a contrast discrimination ( t (4) = 2.94, P = 0.021). In addition, maximum movement velocities were significantly lower in the extrapolation dual-task condition ( t (4) = 3.76, P = 0.01) and the accuracy of the landing point in the eccentricity domain (i.e., the variable error) was significantly more impaired ( t (4) = 5.98, P = 0.002). In contrast, landing site variable error (bias) in the angular domain did not differ significantly between task pairs ( t (4) = 0.46, P = 0.33).
Raw data on landing site biases were compared for the extrapolation and contrast dual-task conditions. Saccadic landing site constant errors (biases) in the eccentricity domain were found to be more negative (i.e., saccades fell short of the target to a greater extent) in the extrapolation dual-task condition ( t (4) = 4, P = 0.02; two-tailed); however, there were no differences between extrapolation and contrast dual-task conditions with respect to constant errors in the angular domain ( t (4) = 0.32, P = 0.77; two-tailed). Thus, in conclusion, relative to the saccade + contrast condition, saccades made concurrently with a visuospatial perceptual judgment were delayed, slower, and less accurate in terms of the distance moved; in addition, they were biased such that the final landing position fell short of the target.
Finally, to check that the better eye movement performance in the saccade and contrast task pair was not achieved at a greater cost to perceptual task performance we also compared perceptual task performances in the two dual-task conditions using a one-tailed paired-samples t-test. This indicated that perceptual task sensitivity was in fact poorer in the extrapolation and saccade task pair than it was in the saccade and contrast task pair ( t (4) = 5.94, P = 0.002). Further, dual-task extrapolation and contrast discrimination performances were significantly worse than baseline (single-task) performance ( t (4) = 7.25, P = 0.002, t (4) = 3.9, P = 0.018, respectively). Thus, the elevated interference effect between concurrently performed saccades and a visuospatial perceptual task is bidirectional, impairing both eye movement and perceptual task performance alike.
Perceptual extrapolations were found to incur a greater cost on eye movement performance than did contrast discrimination judgments. These findings are consistent with (1) perceptual judgments and oculomotor responses relying on shared attentional mechanisms and (2) non-spatial perceptual tasks presenting a relatively low drain on these resources.
Finally, given the prolonged movement onset time reported in the saccade + extrapolation task pairing we wondered whether the elevated interference reported might simply reflect a time-consuming extrapolation process. To assess this possibility we examined the processing time required to perform the basic perceptual judgments using a post-stimulus pattern mask. Observers performed single-task judgments (extrapolation and contrast discrimination) on post-masked images presented at varying stimulus durations. Pattern post-masks are thought to interrupt processing of a stimulus by flooding or diverting resources away from channels sensitive to the target (Reeves, 2007; Rolls, Tovee, & Panzeri, 1999). Although pilot data were gathered using several different mask types a "random lines" pattern mask provided the most robust masking effect (Figure 4).
Trial sequence for Experiment 3. Observers performed single-task perceptual extrapolation and contrast discrimination judgments on post-masked stimuli over a range of stimulus presentation times.
Three observers took part in Experiment 3, including one of the authors, one highly experienced observer (naive to the purpose of the experiment), and a naive observer with no previous experience of psychological studies.
Stimulus contrast and structure was identical to that described in Experiment 1; however, the stimulus presentation time was manipulated in separate blocks. In addition, following offset of the stimulus a broadband "random lines" mask was presented onscreen for 300 ms ( Figure 4). This was composed of 800 maximum contrast black and white contours of single pixel width: 400 of these were of a random orientation, position, and length, while a further 400 (of random length and orientation) projected radially outward from the location previously occupied by the centroid of the fixation patch.
All observers made judgments at five stimulus presentation times (30, 50, 70, 100, and 300 ms) and performed 3 blocks of 150 trials per time point per task. Blocks were presented in a pseudo-random order, and the mask was presented for 300 ms. Following offset of the mask, observers indicated their response [target offset above or below (extrapolation task), contrast higher or lower (contrast discrimination task)] by button press.
Data from the 30-ms stimulus presentation time were excluded from analysis as performance was at chance. For each observer and each task, all psychophysical data (from the remaining 4 time points) were fit with a 2-parameter power function using the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). However, as observers exhibited large and seemingly idiosyncratic biases between experimental sessions at lower stimulus presentation times (i.e., even on identical tasks/conditions), all data were initially normalized with respect to biases before they were fit using the methods described above.
In order to do this, data from each time point were independently fit with a two-parameter Gaussian distribution; the mean of this distribution was then subtracted from the stimulus levels (target offset for the extrapolation task and contrast for the contrast discrimination task), so that data were essentially bias free (Morgan, Giora, & Solomon, 2008).
Individual extrapolation and contrast discrimination sensitivities are plotted as a function of stimulus duration following post-masking of the target stimulus ( Figure 5). As can be seen, data are well fit by a series of power functions, suggesting that sensitivity increases as a function of increasing stimulus presentation time. However, critically, for all 3 observers the exponent term for the best fitting power function was consistently more positive for the contrast discrimination data than for the extrapolation data [MT: 0.66 vs. 0.35; NG: 0.78 vs. 0.32; JP: 0.5 vs. 0.46], suggesting that if anything, reducing the stimulus presentation time had a greater limiting effect on contrast discrimination performance. However, this difference was not significant in a paired-samples t-test ( t (2) = 2.2, P = 0.16).
Perceptual extrapolation and contrast discrimination data (single task/masked stimulus) were fit with a series of power functions (solid lines) using the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE); the exponent terms of the best fits are presented (in brackets). Data from individual time points were also independently fit with a series of cumulative Gaussians (using MLE). Sensitivity levels (1/threshold) thus derived are also presented; error bars represent 95% confidence limits. Stim(T)—stimulus presentation time (in milliseconds).
These data clearly rule out the possibility that the differential interference pattern between the two perceptual tasks and saccadic eye movements described in Experiment 2 can be attributed to a sluggish extrapolation process.
This study was designed to test two main hypotheses: firstly, that visuospatial perceptual judgments and eye movements share common and limited resources (Kowler et al., 1995), and secondly, that a visuospatial perceptual task represents a greater drain on these resources than does a carefully matched non-spatial control task (Pastukhov et al., 2009). Both of these hypotheses were supported by the data: the results show that perceptual extrapolations share common limited resources both with a non-spatial perceptual task (Experiment 1) and a spatial oculomotor task (Experiment 2), and further, that there is significantly greater interference between the saccade and extrapolation task pair than there is between the saccade and contrast task pair (Experiment 2), a finding that cannot be attributed to a sluggish extrapolation process (Experiment 3). In fact, while there was a general trend toward reduced accuracy saccades in the saccade + contrast task pair (relative to baseline), none of these effects reached significance. While an alternative interpretation of the data may thus be that non-spatial perceptual judgments and eye movements depend on completely separate attentional resources this seems unlikely for several reasons. First, as mentioned above, while eye movement performance was not significantly impaired by concurrent contrast discrimination judgments there was a clear and consistent trend in this direction, which may have reached significance if a larger sample size had been used. Secondly, performing a concurrent saccade did significantly impair contrast discrimination performance. Finally, contrast discrimination performance was found to be susceptible to dual-task interference from a concurrent extrapolation judgment (Experiment 1), which in turn was shown to tap into the same resources as do target-directed saccades (Experiment 2). Therefore, the most parsimonious explanation of the data from Experiments 1–3 is that oculomotor responses and perceptual judgments rely on common resources that are heavily drawn upon by spatial tasks.
The finding that interference effects on saccadic eye movements are lower for a concurrently performed non-spatial perceptual task—rather than a spatial perceptual task—sheds some light on what may have been perceived as a discrepancy in the existing literature. Thus, while sensitivity for judgments of orientation (Castet et al., 2006; Lee & Lee, 2008; Montagnini & Castet, 2007), the discrimination of a letter from its mirror-symmetric rotated counterpart (Baldauf & Deubel, 2008; Deubel, 2008; Deubel & Schneider, 1996; Schneider & Deubel, 2002) as well as alphanumeric character identification (Hoffman & Subramaniam, 1995; Kowler et al., 1995; Van der Stigchel & Theeuwes, 2005) is known to be elevated at target site locations presaccadically, a similar effect was not found for the detection of a briefly presented luminance increment (Remington, 1980). While this led Remington et al. to conclude that the oculomotor system is relatively independent of visuoperceptual attention, the experiments reported here—which examine interference effects between spatial and non-spatial perceptual tasks and concurrently performed eye movements within a single carefully controlled study—instead suggest that oculomotor responses and visuoperceptual judgments do in fact rely on the same attentional mechanisms, its just that non-spatial tasks are relatively non-demanding. Our data are thus also consistent with previous demonstrations that "the discrimination of relative position places a particularly high demand on attention" (Pastukhov et al., 2009; see also Hess, Barnes, Dumoulin, & Dakin, 2003). Thus, we have shown that the comparatively high cost on attentional resources of a spatial task is true even of carefully controlled spatial and non-spatial tasks matched for stimulus structure and task performance.
Given the purported role of the dorsal stream in spatial vision (Mishkin, Lewis, & Ungerleider, 1982) it also worthy of note that in a series of studies into the effects of performing saccades on basic psychophysical task performance Irwin and Brockmole (2004( have come to the conclusion that typical dorsal stream (e.g., visuospatial) tasks are suppressed during saccades, whereas ventral stream tasks are not. Thus, they report that horizontal eye movements interrupt the classification of an object's direction of facing but not recognition of the object itself (Irwin & Brockmole, 2004). Similarly, numerical magnitude comparison (Irwin & Thomas, 2007), attentional shifts of scale (Brockmole, Carlson, & Irwin, 2002), and mental rotation (Irwin & Brockmole, 2000; all putatively dorsal stream tasks) are selectively suppressed during saccades, whereas parity judgments (Irwin & Thomas, 2007), identity priming (Irwin, Carlson-Radvansky, & Andrews, 1995), and word recognition/identification (Irwin, 1998) are unaffected. However, as task difficulty or observer performance was rarely verified, controlled, or equated in these tasks, the findings are difficult to interpret, and may instead simply be consistent with saccades showing greater (i.e., detectable) interference effects when coupled with perceptual tasks that are relatively difficult and/or those which are heavily spatial in nature, e.g., those involving judgments of object orientation, direction of facing, or rotation.
Several other converging lines of research highlight a close coupling between visuoperceptual and oculomotor space. Thus, there is evidence for a distortion of visual space around the time an eye movement is executed (perisaccadic mislocalization or compression; Cai, Pouget, Schlag-Rey, & Schlag, 1997; Honda, 1993; Kaiser & Lappe, 2004; Matin & Pearce, 1965; Ross, Morrone, & Burr, 1997; Schlag & Schlag-Rey, 1995) or when spatial information is retrieved from working memory following execution of a saccade (Bays & Husain, 2008). Further, when systematic saccade targeting errors are corrected over time in an adaptive manner (saccadic adaptation) perceptual judgments are similarly skewed (Collins et al., 2007), suggesting that a common map underlies both decision processes (Eckstein et al., 2007). Finally, saccades made in the presence of non-attended distracters exhibit systematic biases toward or away from the distracters (Ludwig, Gilchrist, & McSorley, 2005; McSorley, Haggard, & Walker, 2004, 2005, 2006; Nummenmaa & Hietanen, 2006), suggesting that even unattended task-irrelevant stimuli gain partial access to a level of representation that encodes goal-directed saccadic targets (Doyle & Walker, 2002; McPeek, 2006).
In conclusion, the dual-task interference data reported provide strong evidence to suggest that visuospatial extrapolations and eye movements directed toward explicit targets compete for common limited resources. In addition, the results indicate that a non-spatial perceptual task (i.e., a contrast discrimination) is less demanding of these common resources, even when matched to the spatial task with respect to stimulus structure and task difficulty/observer performance. Future studies are needed however to begin to disentangle the nature of these interference effects—thus, it remains to be seen whether oculomotor and visuoperceptual spatial tasks compete for common representations of space as well as general attentional resources.
Supplementary Figure S1 - Supplementary Figure S1
Supplementary Figure S1. Individual data are plotted for several eye movement profile parameters as a function of task condition [Saccade – baseline performance (dark grey bars); Sacc + Extrap – saccades performed concurrently with extrapolation judgements (light grey bars); Sacc + Con – saccades performed concurrently with contrast discrimination judgements (white bars)]. Onset – movement onset time; Errorc – constant error of saccade landing site (a measure of observer bias); Errorv – variable error of saccade landing site (a measure of observer accuracy); Vmax – maximum velocity of the movement profile measured in degrees per second; r – the radial coordinate (i.e. eccentricity); θ – angular coordinate: positive values represent clockwise deviations. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001; ***P < 0.0001.
This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. 079766). The authors would like to thank Nikky Stoltzman and Dean Melmoth for comments on the manuscript as well as the Reviewers whose suggestions were of great use to our interpretation of the data.
Commercial relationships: none.
Corresponding author: Marc Samuel Tibber.
Email: mtibber@yahoo.com.
Address: Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK.
Altmann, C. F. Grodd, W. Kourtzi, Z. Bulthoff, H. H. Karnath, H. O. (2005). Similar cortical correlates underlie visual object identification and orientation judgment. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2101–2108. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Baldauf, D. Deubel, H. (2008). Properties of attentional selection during the preparation of sequential saccades. Experimental Brain Research, 184, 411–425. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bays, P. M. Husain, M. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321, 851–854. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bonnel, A. M. Stein, J. F. Bertucci, P. (1992). Does attention modulate the perception of luminance changes? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, Human Experimental Psychology, 44, 601–626. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Brockmole, J. R. Carlson, L. A. Irwin, D. E. (2002). Inhibition of attended processing during saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 867–881. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burr, D. C. Morrone, M. C. Ross, J. (2001). Separate visual representations for perception and action revealed by saccadic eye movements. Current Biology, 11, 798–802. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cai, R. H. Pouget, A. Schlag-Rey, M. Schlag, J. (1997). Perceived geometrical relationships affected by eye-movement signals. Nature, 386, 601–604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Castet, E. Jeanjean, S. Montagnini, A. Laugier, D. Masson, G. S. (2006). Dynamics of attentional deployment during saccadic programming. Journal of Vision, 6, (3):2, 196–212, http://journalofvision.org/6/3/2/, doi:10.1167/6.3.2. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef]
Cavina-Pratesi, C. Goodale, M. A. Culham, J. C. (2007). FMRI reveals a dissociation between grasping and perceiving the size of real 3D objects. PLoS ONE, 2,
Collins, T. Dore-Mazars, K. Lappe, M. (2007). Motor space structures perceptual space: Evidence from human saccadic adaptation. Brain Research, 1172, 32–39. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Deubel, H. (2008). The time course of presaccadic attention shifts. Psychology Research, 72, 630–640. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Deubel, H. Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827–1837. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Deubel, H. Schneider, W. X. Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5, 81–107. [CrossRef]
Doyle, M. C. Walker, R. (2002). Multisensory interactions in saccade target selection: Curved saccade trajectories. Experimental Brain Research, 142, 116–130. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. Psychology Review, 87, 272–300. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eckstein, M. P. Beutter, B. R. Pham, B. T. Shimozaki, S. S. Stone, L. S. (2007). Similar neural representations of the target for saccades and perception during search. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 1266–1270. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eggert, T. Sailer, U. Ditterich, J. Straube, A. (2002). Differential effect of a distractor on primary saccades and perceptual localization. Vision Research, 42, 2969–2984. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Faillenot, I. Sunaert, S. Van Hecke, P. Orban, G. A. (2001). Orientation discrimination of objects and gratings compared: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 585–596. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hess, R. F. Barnes, G. Dumoulin, S. O. Dakin, S. C. (2003). How many positions can we perceptually encode, one or many? Vision Research, 43, 1575–1587. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hoffman, J. E. Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 787–795. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Honda, H. (1993). Saccade-contingent displacement of the apparent position of visual stimuli flashed on a dimly illuminated structured background. Vision Research, 33, 709–716. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Irwin, D. E. (1998). Lexical processing during saccadic eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 1–27. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Irwin, D. E. Brockmole, J. R. (2000). Mental rotation is suppressed during saccadic eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 654–661. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Irwin, D. E. Brockmole, J. R. (2004). Suppressing where but not what: The effect of saccades on dorsal- and ventral-stream visual processing. Psychology Science, 15, 467–473. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Irwin, D. E. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. Andrews, R. V. (1995). Information processing during saccadic eye movements. Acta Psychologica, 90, 261–273. [CrossRef]
Irwin, D. E. Thomas, L. E. (2007). The effect of saccades on number processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 450–458. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kaiser, M. Lappe, M. (2004). Perisaccadic mislocalization orthogonal to saccade direction. Neuron, 41, 293–300. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kowler, E. Anderson, E. Dosher, B. Blaser, E. (1995). The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Research, 35, 1897–1916. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, D. K. Itti, L. Koch, C. Braun, J. (1999). Attention activates winner-take-all competition among visual filters. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 375–381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, D. K. Koch, C. Braun, J. (1997). Spatial vision thresholds in the near absence of attention. Vision Research, 37, 2409–2418. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, D. K. Koch, C. Braun, J. (1999). Attentional capacity is undifferentiated: Concurrent discrimination of form, color, and motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1241–1255. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, J. Lee, C. (2008). Changes in orientation discrimination at the time of saccadic eye movements. Vision Research, 48, 2213–2223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ludwig, C. J. Gilchrist, I. D. McSorley, E. (2005). The remote distractor effect in saccade programming: Channel interactions and lateral inhibition. Vision Research, 45, 1177–1190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Matin, L. Pearce, D. G. (1965). Visual perception of direction for stimuli flashed during voluntary saccadic eye movements. Science, 148, 1485–1488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McPeek, R. M. (2006). Incomplete suppression of distractor-related activity in the frontal eye field results in curved saccades. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96, 2699–2711. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McSorley, E. Haggard, P. Walker, R. (2004). Distractor modulation of saccade trajectories: Spatial separation and symmetry effects. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 320–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McSorley, E. Haggard, P. Walker, R. (2005). Spatial and temporal aspects of oculomotor inhibition as revealed by saccade trajectories. Vision Research, 45, 2492–2499. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McSorley, E. Haggard, P. Walker, R. (2006). Time course of oculomotor inhibition revealed by saccade trajectory modulation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96, 1420–1424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mishkin, M. Lewis, M. E. Ungerleider, L. G. (1982). Equivalence of parieto-preoccipital subareas for visuospatial ability in monkeys. Behavioral Brain Research, 6, 41–55. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Montagnini, A. Castet, E. (2007). Spatiotemporal dynamics of visual attention during saccade preparation: Independence and coupling between attention and movement planning. Journal of Vision, 7, (14):8, 1–16, http://journalofvision.org/7/14/8/, doi:10.1167/7.14.8. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Morgan, M. J. Giora, E. Solomon, J. A. (2008). A single "stopwatch" for duration estimation, a single "ruler" for size. Journal of Vision, 8, (2):14, 11–18, http://journalofvision.org/8/2/14/, doi:10.1167/8.2.14. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Morrone, M. C. Denti, V. Spinelli, D. (2002). Color and luminance contrasts attract independent attention. Current Biology, 12, 1134–1137. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Morrone, M. C. Denti, V. Spinelli, D. (2004). Different attentional resources modulate the gain mechanisms for color and luminance contrast. Vision Research, 44, 1389–1401. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nummenmaa, L. Hietanen, J. K. (2006). Gaze distractors influence saccadic curvature: Evidence for the role of the oculomotor system in gaze-cued orienting. Vision Research, 46, 3674–3680. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pashler, H. (1994a). Divided attention: Storing and classifying briefly presented objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 115–118. [CrossRef]
Pashler, H. (1994b). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Pashler, H. Carrier, M. Hoffman, J. (1993). Saccadic eye movements and dual-task interference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, Human Experimental Psychology, 46, 51–82. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pastukhov, A. Fischer, L. Braun, J. (2009). Visual attention is a single, integrated resource. Vision Research, 49, 1166–1173. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Reeves, A. (2007). An analysis of visual masking, with a defense of 'Stopped Processing'. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 57–65. [CrossRef]
Remington, R. W. (1980). Attention and saccadic eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 726–744. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rice, N. J. Valyear, K. F. Goodale, M. A. Milner, A. D. Culham, J. C. (2007). Orientation sensitivity to graspable objects: An fMRI adaptation study. Neuroimage, 36, T87–T93. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rolls, E. T. Tovee, M. J. Panzeri, S. (1999). The neurophysiology of backward visual masking: Information analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 300–311. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ross, J. Morrone, M. C. Burr, D. C. (1997). Compression of visual space before saccades. Nature, 386, 598–601. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schlag, J. Schlag-Rey, M. (1995). Illusory localization of stimuli flashed in the dark before saccades. Vision Research, 35, 2347–2357. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schneider, W. X. Deubel, H. Prinz, W. Hommel, B. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: A review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. Attention and performance: Volume XIX. Attention and performance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sperling, G. Melchner, M. J. (1978). The attention operating characteristic: Examples from visual search. Science, 202, 315–318. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tibber, M. S. Anderson, E. J. Melmoth, D. R. Rees, G. Morgan, M. J. (2009). Common cortical loci are activated during visuospatial interpolation and orientation discrimination judgements. PLoS ONE, 4,
Valyear, K. F. Culham, J. C. Sharif, N. Westwood, D. Goodale, M. A. (2006). A double dissociation between sensitivity to changes in object identity and object orientation in the ventral and dorsal visual streams: A human fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 44, 218–228. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Van der Stigchel, S. Theeuwes, J. (2005). The influence of attending to multiple locations on eye movements. Vision Research, 45, 1921–1927. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wichmann, F. A. Hill, N. J. (2001a). The psychometric function: I Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1293–1313. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef]
Wichmann, F. A. Hill, N. J. (2001b). The psychometric function: II Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1314–1329. [PubMed] [Article] [CrossRef]
Supplementary Figure S1
9.12.21_supplementary_figs1.gif
© 2009 ARVO
Time course of the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades and perceptual judgments
Distorted object perception following whole-field adaptation of saccadic eye movements
Post-saccadic location judgments reveal remapping of saccade targets to non-foveal locations
Depth perception during saccades
What do saliency models predict?
From Other Journals
Eye Movement Alterations During Reading in Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease
Analysis of Saccades and Peak Velocity to Symmetrical Convergence Stimuli: Binocularly Normal Controls Compared to Convergence Insufficiency Patients
Effect of Stimulus Type on the Eye Movements of Children
Eye Movement Abnormalities in Joubert Syndrome
Recording Three-Dimensional Eye Movements: Scleral Search Coils versus Video Oculography
Perception and Action
Eye Anatomy and Disorders
Eye Movements, Strabismus, Amblyopia and Neuro-ophthalmology
Visual Psychophysics and Physiological Optics

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Astara-Astara railway become operational
President of Islamic Republic of Iran Railways (RAI) said the Astara (Iran)-Astara (Azerbaijan) railway line will become operational in the current Iranian year (ending March 20).
Mohsen Pourseyyed Aghaei expressed hope that the project which connects railways of Iran and Azerbaijan Republic will be implemented by the end of the current Iranian calendar year saying "upon completion, the railroad will transfer goods and commodities from Iran to Moscow and the Black Sea."
The official, while noting that the joint bridge project for the railroad is in final stages of completion, added "both Iranian and Azerbaijani sides have accomplished a great portion of the construction phase."
Accordingly, goods from all over the country will be carried to Astara station where they will be loaded to be transferred to the Russian capital of Moscow as well as to the Black Sea, Pourseyyed Aghaei continued to say.
Chairman of Azerbaijan Railways CSC Javid Gurbanov, for his part, stated "Azerbaijan has fulfilled its share and construction has reached the joint bridge situated on the border."
"Under the terms of an agreement between both countries' presidents, the construction work of the joint railway project will be finished in the current year," stressed Gurbanov.
Baku and Tehran have decided to accelerate the construction of the Astara (Iran)-Astara (Azerbaijan) railway line, which would connect the railway networks of both countries.
Both countries have agreed to finance the construction of the railway line and connector as part of the North-South international transport corridor.
The length of the proposed railway is 10 kilometers. Some 8 kilometers will pass through Azerbaijani soil and two kilometers through Iranian territory.
Deutsche Bahn willing to use INSTC for Iran trade Arasbaran nomads Ashiq; Azeri cultural heritage / Photo Photo: Beautiful autumn in Arasbaran forest
November 10, 2016 IRAN THIS WAY BussinessAstara , Azerbaijan , Iran Railways (RAI) , railway
← Hong Kong ready to bolster economic ties with Iran Luxurious Golden Eagle trains back to Iran →


text:
Share this Story: Asia stocks up slightly in cautious trade as focus shifts to U.S. payrolls
Asia stocks up slightly in cautious trade as focus shifts to U.S. payrolls
Stanley White
TOKYO — Asian stocks edged higher on Friday, thanks to gains on Wall Street, but the mood was cautious before a key U.S. job report that could help determine whether the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates further.
Investors have been caught out by a set of weak U.S. data this week, including surveys on services and manufacturing sectors, deepening fears the Sino-U.S. trade war is starting to hurt growth in the world's biggest economy.
Asia stocks up slightly in cautious trade as focus shifts to U.S. payrolls Back to video
"We'll probably see a bounce in Asian shares, but then nervousness will creep into the markets as the day progresses," said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy and chief economist at AMP Capital Investors in Sydney.
MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan rose 0.3%. Japan's Nikkei stock index lost 0.17%, but Australian shares edged 0.05% higher.
U.S. stock futures fell 0.15% in Asia on Friday, though that followed a 0.80% increase in the S&P 500 on Wall Street overnight on hopes that future Fed rate cuts will support corporate profits.
"The bounce on Wall Street is not a definitive sign. It's actually pessimistic for stocks that two-year yields are falling this much. It shows the bond market hasn't gotten on board with this positive growth story," AMP's Oliver said.
That sentiment was underscored by a frail performance for world stocks in recent weeks, hurt by political uncertainty in the United Stated and Hong Kong, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, Brexit and a drumroll of weak global data.
In Asia, excluding Japan, equities were on course for the third weekly decline, their worst performance since four weeks of declines ended Aug. 16.
Japan's Nikkei was down 2.6% for the week, on course for its biggest weekly decline since Aug. 2, pressured by worries about trade friction and a resurgent yen.
Hong Kong shares were down 0.13% and though they are on track for a 0.65% weekly gain, sentiment is fragile as the territory's government mulls emergency laws to contain months of often violent protest against China's rule of the former British colony.
U.S. Treasury prices fell slightly but two-year yields remained near the lowest in two years due to growing signs the United States is feeling an economic chill from its trade war with China.
The dollar traded near a one-month low versus the yen, while it was stuck near a one-week trough versus the euro as traders increased bets that the Fed will have to cut rates further to keep growth in the U.S. economy on track.
Data due later on Friday are forecast to show the U.S. economy added 145,000 new jobs in September, more than an increase of 130,000 in the previous month.
However, some traders are braced for a disappointing result after the surprisingly soft data earlier this week on U.S. manufacturing, job creation, and the services sector.
The two-year yield, which tracks expectations for U.S. monetary policy, rose slightly to 1.3981% in Asia but was still close to a two-year low of 1.3680%.
Traders see a 85.2% chance the Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points to 1.75%-2.00% in October, up from 39.6% on Monday, according to CME Group's FedWatch tool.
The Fed has already cut rates twice this year as policymakers try to limit the damage caused by the bruising Sino-U.S. trade war.
The dollar edged down to 106.79 yen, close to a one-month low of 106.48 yen reached on Thursday. The euro was a shade higher at $1.0983, near a one-week high.
For the week, the dollar was down 1.07% versus the yen and off 0.3% against the common currency.
U.S. crude rose 0.36% to $52.64 a barrel. Oil futures on Thursday touched the lowest in nearly two months as the weak U.S. economic data heightened concerns that excess supplies will push prices lower.
For the week, U.S. crude futures were on course for a 5.8% decline, which would be the worst performance since July 19.
Spot gold, a safe-haven asset that investors often buy during times of heightened risk, rose 0.29% to $1,509.11 per ounce, on course for a 0.84% weekly gain. (Editing by Shri Navaratnam)


text:
Q: How to make finder run a keyboard shortcut in applescript? This is my current code:
tell application "Finder"

    tell application "System Events" to keystroke "k" using {command down}

end tell

But it won't work.
Any tips?

A: You do not tell the Finder to tell system events to do stuff.
You need to just make sure the Application that you want to intercept the keystrokes is active. Then tell System events to do the keystroke.
tell application "Finder" to activate
tell application "System Events"

    keystroke "k" using {command down}

end tell

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Board index News
Roy Wilhelm
onepence~2
Postby onepence~2 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:19 am
A spy lurks in Stoneham? Hardly
By Kathryn Skelton , Staff Writer
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/312211- ... am_Hardly/
People want to believe ...
Wilhelm was born in Ohio in 1875.
He was a green coffee broker and importer, according to Pollitt, a Bahai who lives in Fryeburg and works at the Maine Historical Society. She's done quite a bit of research on Wilhelm.
When his mother converted to the faith, Wilhelm had no interest in joining, Pollitt said. "He was quite a Wall Street industrialist. He had no room for any kind of strange religion in his life."
But in 1906, when his mother wanted to travel to the spiritual center in Israel, he didn't want her going alone. "When he met (leader) Abdu'l-Bahá in Palestine, his heart was really turned around and he became a Bahai," Pollitt said.
He was posthumously awarded the rare Bahai honor "Hand of the Cause of God" and buried in his Stoneham hillside.


Gather up all of your old Christmas cards and decorate your windows, hanging them up just like clothes on a clothesline. Use metal rings or wooden clothespins to hang them.
Stockings aren't only for the mantel – you can dress up your windows with them too! Hang them up on a string along with ornaments and garlands to decorate your windows and jazz them up even more for the holidays!
Bake ginger bread cookies, tie a loop at the top with a ribbon and hang them against your window for a "Candy Shop" window look!
Candy canes are a cheap way to dress up any area of your home and make it scream "Christmas is coming!". Tie a string across your window and hang red and white candy canes along the string on a ribbon. Go for a nature walk and pick up pine cones, mixing them up on the string along with the candy canes. To make your decor even more festive, paint glitter over your pine cones to make your window twinkle all night long!
You can't go wrong with a simple holiday wreath that you can hang either on the inside or outside of your window. Wrap a bold red ribbon around it and add some holiday baubles for even more color and cheer.
Hanging clear glass ornaments over your windows is a good way of dressing it up. Glass ornaments invite natural light in and cast a shine and sparkle all over the room. You can hang the glass ornaments with ribbons of different lengths but make sure the ribbons are tied securely onto the bauble and on the frame of the window.
If you want a sweet and starry starry night vibe this holiday, hang pieces of dried wood vines outside your window pane and add laces and gold stars on it. You can also hang paper snowflakes from the rods using colorful season inspired ribbons to depict a scene of snow falling from the sky. Christmas lights will also make it look classy and vintage.
Stained glass is expensive and thankfully there are many ways to mimic this high end look. You can purchase Christmas decorations that are inspired by stained glass and even stained glass stickers for easy application and removal. You can also try DIY stained glass windows, using colored tissue paper and glue – a great way to get the kids involved!
This is a great way to bring the outdoors in and use what you have around your home – twigs. Use dried twigs and spray paint them in shiny black, gold or silver. You can also add some glue to them and roll them in glitter for a sparkly look. Pop them in a few glass vases and hang some crystal beads on it for an icy winter look!
This article was exclusively written by Huffington Post blogger Patricia Evans. You can read more of her work at her blog on The Huffington Post.
This entry was posted in DIY and tagged baubles, better decorating bible, blog, candy canes, christmas, christmas cards, decorating, diy, do it yourself, dress up windows, easy, ginger bread cookies, holidays, ideas, last minute decor, ornaments, pine cones, projects, spray paint twigs, stockings, wreath. Bookmark the permalink.


Your bag comes with crystals that work together to enhance your intuitive development. You can use these stones in a variety of ways to strengthen your intuition.
Sodalite: Works with the Third Eye Chakra to awaken latent psychic abilities. Develops intuition and trust in listening to one's inner guidance. Helps the spiritual student understand esoteric studies. Awakens and strengthens clairvoyance.
Allows you to access your subconscious and gain a clearer understanding of your purpose on earth. Aids in dream recall and lucid dreaming. Helps you reach deeper states during meditation.
Wearing or carrying a piece of Sodalite helps to calm anxiety.
Helps the wearer to be a confident public speaker. Gives one the courage to speak their truth.
Amethyst: The beautiful purple of the Amethyst helps open our crown chakra, so that our connection to God is made even stronger. Amethyst is called the "all healer" and helps to restore people, plants and animals. Amethyst clusters in rooms cleans the environment of negative energy from fights.
Amethyst is a stone of balance, protection and love. It helps us to connect to our higher selves and spirit guides as it gently works to open the third eye and crown chakras.
When worn or carried, Amethyst will help you feel emotionally balanced. Its said to make the wearer more efficient at work and with decisions. It fights off temptations.
Meditating with Amethyst awakens us to our true spiritual path. When sleeping with Amethyst, it protects us from nightmares.
Clear Quartz: Called the "master healer," Clear Quartz is an energy amplifier. It will work to awaken and energize your psychic centers. It balances and aligns our energetic bodies. Clear Quartz opens and enhances clairvoyance. This high vibration stone works on the Third Eye and Crown chakra helping us to open to our spiritual gifts with confidence.
Clear Quartz is the only stone you can "program" or ask to work with you for a specific intent.
Labradorite: This beautiful, shimmering stone is often called the Stone of Magic because it look as though it has magically trapped a beautiful blue light inside of it. Working with Labradorite helps the wearer to understand their soul purpose. It enhances communication with one's spirit guides and guardian angels.
For healers, Labradorite helps one to get in touch with their client's soul purpose so they can help them on a deeper level.
Wearing or carrying Labradorite will throw up a shield of protection around your aura.
Labradorite calms anxiety and overactive mind making it a great stone for meditation.
Moonstone: Named for its moonlike sheen, this beautiful stone helps to balance emotions, brings loving acceptance of ourselves and opens our intuitive abilities. It's a protective stone for those traveling – especially over water. Moonstone is also a stone of romantic love. It ignites the heart chakra. Wearing Moonstone inspires creative people. When given as a gift, it symbolizes love and loyalty. Meditating with Moonstone helps to clear the chakras of negativity.
It will also aid dreamwork and assists with understanding precognitive dreams.
It's said to stimulate the pineal gland and awaken the third eye.
Helps those who work with psychic tools such as tarot, pendulums or runes.
Balances your energy so you can open to your gifts.
Aids in communicating with loved ones and guides on the other side.