ArticlePerception & psychophysics1992
Suppression of optokinesis by a stabilized target: effects of instruction and stimulus frequency.
Article in Perception & psychophysics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of unilateral cortical blindness on lane position and gaze behavior in a virtual reality steering task.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multiple mechanisms of response suppression to self-induced sensation during pursuit eye movements.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Fixating on a laser-projected point at a constant distance suppresses periodic eye movements and impairs balance control during cycling.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjects viewed a foveally stabilized target presented against a background field of dots moving sinusoidally. Several different modes of viewing the target were used (subjects were instructed to gaze, look, or hold), and the frequency of sinusoidal field motion was varied from 1/32 to 2 Hz. In line with previous findings, the presence of a stabilized target resulted in substantial suppression of optokinesis. The characteristics of this suppression (gain and phase of slow residual eye movements) were dependent on both the mode of viewing the target and the frequency of field motion. When subjects used an imaginary target, little suppression occurred. These findings provide an overall profile of dynamic characteristics of mechanisms involved in the suppression of optokinesis. They support the view that this suppression is significantly determined by the presence of a target against a moving background (even without retinal slip), and by the mode of attending to the target.
Indexed as
Identifiers
1508626What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.