In terms of the spatial properties of the premotor attentional shift, there is some diverging evidence on whether, and how tightly, pre-saccadic attention is locked to the saccade target. Many studies point to pre-saccadic attention being specific to the saccade target: for example Deubel and Schneider (
1996), Hoffman and Subramaniam (
1995), Kowler et al. (
1995), and White et al. (
2013) have found that attentional facilitation was higher at the saccade location than neighboring non-saccade locations, and Jonikaitis, Klapetek, and Deubel (
2017) showed that attention was biased toward the choice of a future saccade target. However, there is some evidence to suggest that attention may be allocated in a broader manner around a saccade target: Castet et al. (
2006) reported that locations neighboring the saccade target location also showed a benefit in performance when participants were required to attend to those locations, and Stewart and Ma-Wyatt (
2017) showed an asymmetrical spread of attention based on the direction of hand movement. For reaches, Rolfs, Lawrence, and Carrasco (
2013) found that discrimination performance was better at the reach target compared to a location on the opposite side of the screen, and Jonikaitis and Deubel's (
2011) results showed that attention shifted to the location of the reach before reach onset, but did not spread to locations around the reach target. Similarly, when sequential movements were being planned, attention was allocated to multiple upcoming movement targets in parallel, but not to locations between these targets (Baldauf, Wolf, & Deubel,
2006). Additionally, in a task where a reach alone was conducted while the eye was fixated, there was attentional facilitation around the reach endpoint, suggesting that reaching alone can trigger a broad shift in attention around the reach target (Stewart & Ma-Wyatt,
2015).